Seven Matters Heard Together
Dismissed — not guilty
Guilty — $500 each
Dismissed — not guilty
Seven matters were heard together. The four recording charges and the bail breach were all dismissed — not guilty. The two distribution charges resulted in findings of guilt, $500 fines each, the minimum penalty the law allowed, on recklessness as to consent.
The images I was convicted of distributing were stills from my own home security cameras, showing the person I had reported inside my apartment. I had sent those images to him in correspondence in which I told him I had footage of him using drugs and taking property from my room. The break-in and identity theft that footage documented have never been investigated.
The Recording Charges Were Dated to the Intrusion Itself
What Smith Knew
On 16 April 2021, rostered 11:23–19:56, was not home. His security cameras and Google account logs later recorded @kandykingX inside the apartment and inside his accounts simultaneously. Reported the intrusion to police. Did not know the footage would become charges against him.
What @kandykingX Did
Inside Smith's home (cameras: kitchen 14:12, bedroom 18:55). Inside Smith's accounts (Gmail searched for "Ike" 17:24, Drive searched 17:48). Nest camera switched off at power board 17:42. 483 photos shared to his accounts. Later swore a statement claiming Smith had made "covert recordings" inside his home.
What Police Did (OIC Mewburn)
Charged Smith with recording intimate images. Three of four s.91P counts were dated 16 April 2021 — the day of the intrusion Smith reported. The conduct the prosecution dated to that day was the entry Smith had reported. A detective confirmed no offending images existed 11 weeks before the hearing. Proceeded regardless.
Three of the four recording charges were dated to the day Smith's own cameras and account logs place @kandykingX inside the apartment while Smith was at work. The prosecution treated the intrusion Smith reported as the offence Smith committed. The victim's evidence of the break-in became the prosecution's evidence of the recording.
Public Livestream Presented as Covert Home Footage
The images said to support the recording charges were screenshots from @kandykingX's own publicly broadcast Beat Saber gaming livestream, streamed from his Potts Point Central Hotel residence in December 2021 — not covert recordings inside Smith's home in early 2021 as @kandykingX had sworn.
The Brief of Evidence itself contains a frame of that broadcast showing @kandykingX signed into the Facebook Live producer (broadcast reference 627999184912424), with the live "End Live Video" control on screen — the source he presented as a hidden camera was his own livestream.
What Smith Knew
Did not know the "covert recordings" alleged against him were screenshots from @kandykingX's own public gaming broadcast. The brief itself contained the Facebook Live producer frame proving this.
What @kandykingX Did
Swore in his statement he had "removed all trace of myself and my business from the internet." Record shows the opposite: on 24 January 2022 (the day of Smith's arrest), he opened YouTube channel @vrgameplay9609 whose only upload is the Beat Saber clip the recording charges relied on, plus a second channel with playlists titled "inspiration" and "Fuck You" (last updated 11 April 2022).
What Police Did
Proceeded on @kandykingX's sworn statement despite the Brief of Evidence containing evidence that contradicted it. The Facebook Live producer frame was in the brief. The YouTube channel records were available. The prosecution proceeded regardless.
Beat Saber Livestream — Facebook Broadcast 627999184912424
The Brief of Evidence contains a frame showing @kandykingX signed into the Facebook Live producer, with the "End Live Video" control visible. This publicly broadcast event from Potts Point Central Hotel was the source of the images charged as "covert recordings" inside Smith's home.
Brief of Evidence H85611724; YouTube channel @vrgameplay9609 (joined 24 Jan 2022)"Police Could Not Find Any Images That Would Constitute an Offence"
A Surry Hills detective reviewing the USB exhibit recorded in COPS eleven weeks before the hearing:
The prosecution proceeded regardless. The hearing took place on 24 January 2022. Seven matters were heard together. Five were dismissed. Two resulted in minimum-penalty convictions for distributing images that were the record of the intrusion Smith had reported.
COPS Event E83652754 — From Victim Report to Prosecution Basis
What Smith Knew
Believed he was the complainant. Had reported harassment and computer intrusion. Did not know his own COPS event was being repurposed as the basis for charges against him. When he later sought his separate reports under GIPA, they did not exist as separate events.
What @kandykingX Did
Had sworn a witness statement (18 January 2022) alleging Smith had made covert recordings. Statement became the basis for charges. In the statement, claimed he had "withdrawn from the internet" — record shows he opened YouTube channels on the day of Smith's arrest.
What Police Did
Merged Smith's victim reports into a single COPS event. Wrote the prosecution Facts Sheet into Smith's own complaint event. When Smith later sought his reports under GIPA (GIPAA-2022-0169903), the agency located only this one repurposed event — the separate reports did not exist.
The COPS event behind this prosecution was Smith's own harassment complaint. The charges were written into his report. His victim reports became the architecture of his prosecution. When he sought his reports under GIPA, the agency returned only the event that had been repurposed against him.
The Evidence That Sat in the Exhibit System
A USB of evidence Smith had handed in to police was checked into the exhibit system as X0001334775. A later police narrative records that, because Smith had "been previously charged" over the intimate-image matter, the agency treated his fraud and hacking reports as already "reported and investigated" and not requiring further action — even as the USB sat checked into the exhibit system.
The charges built out of Smith's own harassment complaint had become the reason not to investigate the crimes he was reporting.
USB Exhibit — X0001334775
Evidence provided by Smith and checked into the NSW Police exhibit system. Despite being physically in police possession, the agency later recorded that Smith's reports were "reported and investigated" because he had been charged — using the charges built from his own complaint as the reason not to investigate what he reported.
COPS Event E80847316; exhibit X0001334775; command narrative re "previously charged" basisThe PACER Social Worker — April 2023
In April 2023, a Police, Ambulance and Clinician Early Response (PACER) social worker at Sydney City PAC — embedded with St Vincent's Hospital — wrote to Smith describing what he had experienced as:
This was a police-embedded mental health professional who, after engaging with Smith's account of the events, characterised the conduct as domestic and family violence — the very characterisation NSW Police was not applying to @kandykingX's conduct. The referral was offered to Smith. The same framework was not made available to him against @kandykingX: his own AVO application (approximately September 2022) was refused.
Key Evidence
Solicitor's Reporting Letter — Charges & Outcome
Woolf Associates, ref 6501/22, 16 August 2022. Reporting letter confirming the outcome: seven matters heard together. Four recording charges and bail breach dismissed not guilty. Two distribution charges: convicted, $500 each. Two-year ADVO followed by operation of law.
ViewDownload