Contravene AVO — Dismissed Not Guilty
NSW Police alleged I breached bail by contacting @kandykingX via a phone call on 19 June 2022. The prosecution relied on Optus subscriber records to prove it. The Optus records showed the number had never been connected to the Optus network. The OIC admitted in writing before the hearing that the alleged call was made through Signal, which would not appear in carrier records. The sole witness for the prosecution was a friend of @kandykingX who claimed to recognise my voice, but only from a recording @kandykingX had played him, not from prior personal knowledge. That friend refused to provide his details to police, refused to make a statement, and did not give evidence at the hearing. The charge was dismissed at hearing on 15 August 2022, not guilty, before Magistrate Reiss at Downing Centre Local Court.
Charge: Contravene AVO
NSW Police alleged that on 19 June 2022, I contacted @kandykingX by telephone in contravention of an apprehended violence order. The prosecution case rested on proving I made the call from a specific prepaid number.
The 21 June 2022 Bail 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 (Epiq transcript reference TR144230). Sergeant McKinnon appeared for the Crown. In submissions on unacceptable risk, Sgt McKinnon told the Court that the strength of the prosecution case on the contravention charge was supported by "electronic evidence from the subscriber that the phone number that was used to call the complainant's phone was in fact registered to the applicant." That 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 Documentary Record Against That Submission
- Constable Hammer (OIC) sent me a text message on 7 August 2022 stating: "The call was made through Signal which would not show up on Optus call logs." Signal-app contact does not generate carrier subscriber records of the kind being relied upon in the 21 June bail submission.
- A separate Optus business records inquiry identified the prepaid number alleged to have been used to make the call as a service that had never been connected to Optus's network. Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman complaint reference 2022/04/04237 records the related dispute.
- The OIC admitted in writing prior to hearing that the Optus records would not show Signal-app contact, the very contact the prosecution was attempting to prove. The prosecution proceeded to hearing regardless.
"The call was made through Signal which would not show up on Optus call logs."
The Acquittal
- The substantive charge H91613788 was dismissed at hearing on 15 August 2022, not guilty, before Magistrate Reiss at Downing Centre Local Court.
- The prosecution's sole witness was a friend of @kandykingX who claimed to recognise my voice, but only from a recording @kandykingX had played him, not from prior personal knowledge. That friend refused to provide his details to police, refused to make a statement, and did not give evidence at the hearing. Source: COPS event E89340266.
- The Optus nil records and the OIC's written concession about Signal are supporting documented facts, not the stated basis of the acquittal.
The Prosecution's Claim
That I called @kandykingX on 19 June 2022 from a phone number registered to me, and that carrier subscriber records proved it.
Sgt McKinnon told the Court on 21 June 2022 that there was "electronic evidence from the subscriber that the phone number that was used to call the complainant's phone was in fact registered to the applicant."
The Documentary Record
The carrier inquiry identified the number as a prepaid service that had never been connected to the Optus network. No call records existed.
The OIC conceded in writing on 7 August 2022 that the alleged contact "was made through Signal which would not show up on Optus call logs," directly undermining the basis of the 21 June bail submission.
The prosecution proceeded to hearing regardless.
Source: Epiq certified transcript TR144230, R v Smith, Downing Centre Local Court, 21 June 2022, Magistrate R Williams. Constable Hammer SMS to me, 7 August 2022. Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Reference 2022/04/04237. NSW Police Force charging records H91613788; H85611724. COPS event E89340266 (acquittal basis: sole witness declined to give evidence).
Documents for Prosecution 2
Bail Application Transcript, 21 June 2022
Full transcript of the bail application hearing before Magistrate Williams on 21 June 2022, following the fresh charge. Includes the detention application pressed by police, the strength-of-case submissions, and the bail conditions imposed, including the mental health GP referral requirement within 48 hours of release.
↓ View / download PDFOIC Written Admission: Optus Records
The OIC admitted by text message that the alleged contact "was made through signal which would not show up on Optus call logs," conceding the Optus records could not show the very contact the prosecution was attempting to prove. The prosecution proceeded to hearing regardless.
↓ View / download PDFSolicitor's Reporting Letter, Charges and Outcome
Reporting letter from my solicitor confirming the first prosecution as heard before Magistrate Reiss at Downing Centre on 15 August 2022. Seven matters were heard together: six charges in brief H85611724 plus a separate bail-breach matter (H392614194).
↓ View / download PDFSuperintendent Dunstan Outcome Letter
Letter from Superintendent Paul Dunstan APM, Commander Sydney City PAC, finalising an internal review of complaints relating to officer conduct in the matter that became charge H91613788. Concludes the investigation was "conducted in a thorough manner" and the "available evidence supports the allegations and subsequent charge." H91613788 was dismissed not guilty at hearing 15 August 2022.
↓ View / download PDFRelated prosecutions: Prosecution 1 (H85611724) and Prosecution 3 (H81615839) are covered on their own pages. The full archive, including the oversight record, GIPA tracker, and retaliation timeline, is on the main page.