Dismissed — Not Guilty
The charge was dismissed at hearing on 15 August 2022, not guilty, before Magistrate Reiss at Downing Centre Local Court. The friend who answered the alleged Signal call had declined to provide police with his details or a statement. Rushton gave sworn evidence, but the Court found there was no specific evidence identifying Smith's voice and that the possibility of somebody else using the phone had not been excluded.
The OIC’s message
On 7 August 2022 — eight days before the hearing — OIC Constable Hammer sent Smith a text message stating:
Signal is an encrypted messaging application. Calls made through Signal use internet data, not cellular voice channels. They do not generate carrier subscriber records of the kind the prosecution was relying upon to prove the alleged call.
The OIC said in writing, before the hearing, that the Optus records would not show the very contact the prosecution was attempting to prove. The prosecution proceeded to hearing regardless.
What Smith Knew
Did not make the alleged call. Separately obtained an Optus raw-usage extract for the prepaid service ending 8365. It listed no ordinary voice call on 19 June 2022, while warning that not all details for the period might have been available. Smith sent the material to the OIC.
What @kandykingX Did
Claimed Smith called him on 19 June 2022. A friend answered the alleged call but declined to provide police with details or a statement. At hearing, Rushton did not give specific evidence that he recognised Smith's voice, and there was no evidence from the friend about what was said or his familiarity with Smith.
What Police Did (OIC Hammer)
Stated in writing that the alleged call was made through Signal and would not appear in Optus call logs. The matter therefore required other evidence identifying the caller. It proceeded to hearing without evidence from the friend who answered the alleged call.
The OIC said in writing that the carrier records would not show Signal-app contact — the very contact the prosecution was attempting to prove. The friend who answered the alleged call declined to provide a statement. At hearing, the Court found there was no specific voice-identification evidence and the prosecution had not excluded the reasonable possibility of another person using the phone.
The Bail Application — Sgt McKinnon's Submission
On 21 June 2022, a bail application in R v Smith (case numbers 2022/00021112 and 2022/00179582) was heard before Magistrate R Williams at Downing Centre Local Court. Sgt McKinnon appeared for the Crown. In submissions on unacceptable risk, Sgt McKinnon told the Court:
This submission was made in support of a detention application that the Court declined the same day. Bail was continued with additional conditions, including a mental health GP referral requirement within 48 hours of release.
The submission relied on "electronic evidence from the subscriber" — Optus carrier records — to prove the phone number was registered to Smith. The documentary record tells a different story.
Bail Application Transcript — 21 June 2022
Certified transcript of the Prosecution 2 bail application before Magistrate Williams on 21 June 2022, following the alleged bail-breach call reported by Rushton. Includes the detention application pressed by police, Sgt McKinnon's strength-of-case submissions relying on carrier records, and the bail conditions imposed.
Epiq certified transcript TR144230 · ViewDownloadWhat the Optus Records Actually Showed
Smith separately obtained an Optus raw-usage extract for the prepaid service ending 8365, covering 5 April to 5 July 2022. The extract contains one non-voice entry dated 23 April and no listed voice call on the alleged date, 19 June.
Optus cautioned that not all details for the period might have been available. A separate response said there was “no data available” for the requested period, but the supplied records do not show Optus answering Smith's follow-up question asking whether that meant no calls were made.
What Smith Knew
Had obtained an Optus raw-usage extract with no listed voice call on the alleged date and a separate “no data available” response. Had also obtained Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman complaint reference 2022/04/04237 documenting the dispute. Sent the material to the OIC.
What @kandykingX Did
Claimed Smith called him from that number. A friend answered the alleged call but declined to provide police with details or a statement. The Court later found there was no evidence from the friend about what was said or his familiarity with Smith.
What Police Did
Proceeded on the basis of @kandykingX's allegation and the phone-number association. The OIC knew the Optus records would not show Signal calls. The friend who answered the alleged call had declined to provide a statement. The matter proceeded to hearing without specific voice-identification evidence.
After the night in custody
Tony says he spent the night in custody over the call Rushton reported. When the court granted bail against the police recommendation, he went straight to Optus to find out who owned the number police said had called Rushton. He had already been contacting Optus and the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman about numbers attached to his account that he did not recognise.
Tony says he requested the details and activity records for the alleged calling number. Optus supplied records with no listed mobile call. He gave them to Sgt Barlow at Day Street Police Station, who requested a police copy from Optus. Tony says it was after this exchange that Hammer first told him the alleged call was through Signal, rather than an ordinary mobile call.
Tony Smith · browser review comment 2 · 5 October 2026
The Hearing — Dismissed Not Guilty
The substantive charge H91613788 was dismissed at hearing on 15 August 2022, not guilty, before Magistrate Reiss at Downing Centre Local Court.
The Not-Guilty Outcome
Rushton gave sworn evidence. The friend who answered the alleged call had declined to provide police with his details or a statement and provided no evidence at the hearing. The transcript records that it was unclear whether Rushton overheard the call or was relaying what the friend told him.
Magistrate Reiss found there was no specific evidence identifying Smith's voice, no admission, and insufficient evidence to exclude the reasonable possibility that somebody else used the phone. The Court was not persuaded that the contravention had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the charge.
COPS Event E89340266
The COPS event records that the friend who answered the alleged call was unwilling to provide details or a statement. The controlling outcome source is transcript TR0158859: Rushton testified, but the Court found no specific voice identification and dismissed the charge as not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
COPS Event E89340266 · Transcript TR0158859, 15 August 2022 · controlled source · View COPS event pp. 8–9 (Dunstan extract)What This Prosecution Establishes
Tony connects this case with the other two prosecutions. He says police proceeded despite the problems in the evidence he had brought to their attention.
What Smith Knew
Did not make the alleged call. Had an Optus extract with no listed voice call on the alleged date and the OIC's written statement that Signal calls would not appear in those records. Sent the material to police. The prosecution proceeded to hearing.
What @kandykingX Did
Claimed Smith called him. A friend answered the alleged call but declined to provide police with details or a statement. At hearing, the Court found no specific voice identification and dismissed the charge as not proved beyond reasonable doubt. @kandykingX was the complainant in all three prosecutions.
What Police Did
OIC knew the carrier records could not establish whether a Signal call occurred. The friend who answered the alleged call declined to provide a statement. The matter proceeded without specific voice-identification evidence, and the Court found the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Tony describes a recurring failure across the three prosecutions: the cases proceeded despite the contrary records and disputed identification he had raised. This page records the Optus scope, Hammer’s Signal message and the Court’s not-guilty finding.
Key Evidence
Bail Application Transcript — 21 June 2022
Certified transcript of the Prosecution 2 bail application before Magistrate Williams on 21 June 2022, following the alleged bail-breach call reported by Rushton. Includes Sgt McKinnon's submissions relying on "electronic evidence from the subscriber" and the bail conditions imposed.
Epiq transcript TR144230 · ViewDownloadSolicitor's Reporting Letter — Charges & Outcome
Woolf Associates, ref 6501/22, 16 August 2022. Reporting letter covering the full hearing of 15 August 2022 before Magistrate Reiss — all seven matters heard together. Records that the AVO contravention charge H91613788 (this prosecution) was dismissed not guilty. The same letter also records 4x recording charges dismissed not guilty and 2x distribution charges with guilty findings, $500 each.
ViewDownloadSydney City PAC — Dunstan Outcome and Supporting Evidence Extract
Dunstan’s 11 November 2025 letter said the investigation was thorough and the evidence supported the charge. It gave reference EXT2025-6654, but did not name the officer, charge number or internal complaint number. On 14 November, Tony asked for those details so he could identify which investigation the commander had assessed.
EXT2025-6654 · public extract PDF p. 10 · 11 November 2025; Tony’s clarification request · PDF p. 1 · 14 November 2025
View extractDownloadView Smith's 14 Nov clarification demand