Oversight Timeline

Inspector Winch Declines to Investigate — On 20 September 2024, Inspector Martha Winch (Professional Standards Duty Officer, Kings Cross PAC) wrote: "The complaint does not amount to misconduct and will be declined to be investigated." This was released via GIPAA-2025-0943218. Between September 2024 and February 2025, Winch directed me five times in writing to raise my concerns at court or with my solicitor. The internal rationale for this direction was withheld under s.14(1)(e).

Sydney City PAC — Two Complaints Declined — Superintendent Martin Fileman issued two outcome letters on the same day, 2 June 2023. EXT2023-1685: complaint about an officer being unprofessional during a phone call on 25 April 2023 — declined under s132(a), Police Act 1990. The Duty Officer "spoke to the subject officer" about manner. EXT2023-1827: complaint about officers failing to investigate the incident — declined under s132(b). "No misconduct or maladministration is seen in the actions of the involved officers."

LECC Complaints — My Six Files and Mellor’s Separate Complaint — The Inspector’s decision of 19 May 2026 reviewed six of my complaint files and recorded that the LECC had decided not to investigate them. Tom Mellor’s separate complaint was assessed on 24 April 2026. My later August 2026 complaint appears further down this timeline. (C82-2526/A8579640 · pp. 1, 4 · 19 May 2026; CASE20265651 · p. 1 · 24 April 2026; CASE20269657 · p. 1 · 28 August 2026.)

Dunstan Outcome Letter & Smith's Review — On 11 November 2025, Superintendent Dunstan (Sydney City PAC) issued an outcome letter (EXT2025-6654 · View the extract) concluding the investigation was "conducted in a thorough manner" and "the available evidence supports the allegations and subsequent charge." Three days later, I replied demanding clarification: the officer name, the charge number, and the complaint reference — noting the court record shows the charge was DISMISSED NOT GUILTY. The outcome letter assessed an investigation into a prosecution that collapsed at hearing.

Ministerial Response (F/2025/55291) — The Minister for Police responded to Alex Greenwich MP's office. The response advised that my allegations had been "fully investigated" and that I should contact Kings Cross PAC. The briefing notes were authored by DCI Gretchen Atkins of Kings Cross PAC — the command my complaint concerns. The contact advice was operationally false: I was banned from contacting that command.

The same advice went to two parliaments. The Minister also wrote to a federal minister, Tanya Plibersek MP, in the same terms (F/2025/43622 · MINS-522608304-20911): "Should Mr Smith have further concerns, please encourage him to contact Kings Cross PAC on (02) 8356 0099." The retained filenames identify 2 October 2025; the letters themselves are undated. Inspector Winch’s 16 February 2025 direction had restricted my contact with that command.

The federal letter records that "on 8 July 2025, an officer from Kings Cross PAC spoke with Mr Smith". That call took place. I identify the caller as Detective Chief Inspector Gretchen Atkins of Kings Cross PAC — the same officer who authored the briefing notes on which both ministerial responses were based. The officer who telephoned me then advised the Minister that I should be encouraged to telephone her command, which had barred me from contacting it.

Inspector of the LECC Closes Complaint — Bruce McClintock SC, the Inspector of the LECC, issued a decision on 19 May 2026 closing my complaint (CASE20237645). The OILECC stated there was "no evidence" that the LECC told NSWPF they would block me from their servers — contradicting what Brendan had claimed to Queensland Health. The complaint was closed without engaging the documentary record of the welfare check, the evidence destruction, or the 99-day charging anomaly.

The Command Decides the Complaint About Itself — On 5 August 2026 I lodged a formal complaint and preservation notice with the NSW Police Customer Assistance Unit concerning the omission of Item 7 from Brief H81615839, Inspector Winch's refusal to answer factual questions about it, the command-wide contact restriction, and the conflict arising from the same command controlling enquiries about its own officers. The complaint stated expressly that I objected to it being allocated to Kings Cross PAC, and asked for assessment by Professional Standards Command or an investigator outside that command, with LECC oversight.

On 28 August 2026 the LECC referred the complaint to the Police (CASE20269657). On 31 August 2026 — the next business day — it was declined under s 132 of the Police Act 1990 by Superintendent Jill Walters, Commander of Kings Cross Police Area Command: the command the complaint concerned. The letter classified the matter as "fail to be accessible – fail to provide assistance", stated that "the officer involved has taken all reasonable and appropriate actions", and identified no subsection and no reasons.

On 2 September 2026 I asked the Commission to consider its function under s 99(3) of the LECC Act 2016. On 4 September 2026 the Commission replied: "We are satisfied with how police have dealt with your complaint. We will not be taking any further action. We will not be exercising LECC's function under s99(3) or monitoring Police handling under s101." Any further information, it said, should be emailed directly to the Police.