Police charged Tony 99 days after a zero-result search
3 February 2024. The result: Total Result Count: 0 for 1–7 September 2023. The nil-result was in the brief of evidence — Item 9, Subscriber/CCR.The charging decision was made 99 days later, on
12 May 2024.Police had a zero-result search for the alleged week. They charged him 99 days later.
What Smith Knew
Nothing. He was not told about the zero-result iASK search. He was not told about the investigation. He was about to be charged on the basis of a call he says he did not make.
What @kandykingX Knew
He had claimed Smith called him on 4 September 2023. Police searched the carrier records for that number across the week of the alleged call. The result was zero. Tony identifies him as the operator of bJow_ett, which Tony says impersonated his friend. Tony also identifies @beat_slaya as his alias and his first follower. The export’s earliest visible entry is dated 26 July 2023 — four months before he swore he discovered it.
What Police Knew (OIC Dellenty)
Held the iASK zero-result search since 3 February 2024. Had been told in writing that bJow_ett was alleged to be @kandykingX's impersonation. Had the follower export showing beat_slaya dated 26 July 2023, which Tony identifies as @kandykingX, and the screen recording showing that account’s activity. The nil-result was in the same brief as the allegation. Charged 99 days later.
The OIC held a communication-record search returning zero results for the alleged week. That document was in the same brief as the witness statement alleging the call — a missed call from a saved mobile number. It was directly relevant contrary material, held before the charging decision. The nil-result was Item 9 in the brief served on Smith.
How the Brief Describes the Sending Account
The Facts Sheet opens the alleged conduct with this:
The Facts Sheet describes the sending profile as unknown. Rushton’s statement names it as uernam_here (served brief, PDF p.13, paragraph 6). There is no screenshot, no message export and no exhibit of the 17–18 July 2023 messages anywhere in it. The messages are asserted twice — in the Facts Sheet and in the victim statement — and evidenced nowhere.
What is published, and what is not. The brief as served runs to 54 pages. Pages 1–46 are published here in full — the covering sheet, the contents page, the Court Attendance Notice, the Facts Sheet, both statements, the Meta business records and the carrier records. Pages 47–53 are Smith's own criminal history, bail report and infringement-notice history; they bear on nothing in this page and are not published. Page 54 is blank. Two redactions have been applied to the published pages: one paragraph of the victim statement describing a private recording of himself, and the name, address and date of birth of an unrelated third party appearing in a carrier subscriber record.
Tony identifies uernam_here as his own account, which carried his photograph and his name.
The 17 July 2023 Messages, in Their Own Thread
Smith's Instagram conversation with the account bjow_ett runs from 24 June to 1 September 2023. It records, on the dates the Facts Sheet cites:
- 17 Jul 2023, 3:37 am — "Bren .." and "You there.." — Smith addressing the account by name
- 17 Jul 2023, 11:40–11:43 pm — the ancient-Greece narrative, sent in installments
- 20 Jul 2023, 12:04 am — the account replies: "That makes no sense"
- 20 Jul 2023, 1:19 am — "Are you mentally unwell"
- 20 Jul 2023, 1:25 am — "Ok you're sounding like a lunatic rambling on the street just going to block you"
A screenshot taken on 8 July 2023 — nine days before the messages the Facts Sheet describes — shows the thread headed bjow_ett, an account with 0 posts and 1 follower, and the line "You follow each other on Instagram."
Smith sent this conversation to OIC Constable Dellenty on 13 October 2023, seven months before the charge was laid. He identified the account in writing again on 9 June 2024. The account appears nowhere in the brief.
Instagram conversation export, sent to OIC 13/10/2023; thread screenshot 08/07/2023; Facts Sheet, Brief H81615839Tony identifies the conversation as bjow_ett. The July messages match the dates and Ancient Greece content described in the Facts Sheet. Item 7, listed as the complainant’s documents, is absent from his served brief.
Item 7 — Absent From the Brief
The Brief of Evidence index lists Item 7 as "Documents provided by Victim." Item 7 has a handwritten mark in the "Verified by B.M." column, and the page is stamped received 27/5/25. But the pages corresponding to Item 7 are not present in the brief as served on Smith on 29 May 2025.
The documents listed as Item 7 were not included in Smith’s served brief. OIC Dellenty later admitted in GIPA Internal Review REV-2025-0858525 that "upon finalisation of the local court matter some information she had received that was not saved on ViewIMS had been deleted."
Brief Manager Initials and the 27 May Receipt Stamp
Contents of Brief of Evidence — Item 7 has a handwritten mark in the "Verified by B.M." column ("Documents provided by Victim"). Stamped received 27/5/25. Two days later, Wilson Tighe (O'Brien Solicitors) served the brief on Smith. Item 7 is absent.
Brief of Evidence H81615839; Wilson Tighe email 29 May 2025; GIPA REV-2025-0858525The Statement Carries Different Maker and Witness Dates
Item 6 of the brief is Isaac Rushton's three-page Statement of a Witness (NSW Police form P190A). The signature blocks do not agree with each other:
- Page 1 of 3 — maker 01/12/2023, witness 01/12/2023
- Page 2 of 3 — maker 26 November 2023, witness 01/12/2023
- Page 3 of 3 — maker 26 November 2023, witness 01/12/2023
The maker dates on pages 2 and 3 are five days earlier than the witness dates. Page 1 carries 1 December for both signatures.
The OIC's own Statement of Police, two documents later in the same brief, records that Rushton attended the front counter on 1 December 2023 and "was finally ready to make a statement," and that she "then took the victim into the witness room where he provided me a victim statement." The statement header likewise reads Date: 01/12/2023. Rushton's own hand dates two of its three pages to 26 November.
The bJow_ett Account
The third prosecution rested on Instagram messages allegedly sent by Smith to @kandykingX on 17 and 18 July 2023. The Facts Sheet prepared by OIC Constable Dellenty described the messages as containing "a narrative of Ancient Greece" sent from "an unknown profile" which the victim was "initially unaware" belonged to the defendant.
Tony’s Account and the Correspondence
1. Tony identifies an impersonation. Tony says @kandykingX created "bJow_ett" in February 2023 using the name and visual identity of a friend he had known in Queensland in 2013. He says he believed for three months that he was talking to that friend.
2. Tony says his friend confirmed the impersonation. Tony says his friend wrote on 25 December 2024: "I've never seen or heard of [@kandykingX]." Tony says his friend told him he did not operate the bJow_ett account.
3. Tony connects the Facts Sheet narrative with his messages. Tony identifies the "narrative of Ancient Greece" described in the Facts Sheet as the messages he sent on 17 July 2023 to bJow_ett, believing he was talking to his friend.
4. The OIC was told the account was bJow_ett. Smith identified the bJow_ett account to OIC Dellenty in writing on 9 June 2024. Dellenty’s 13 June 2024 email says "please stop emailing me" and immediately quotes Smith’s 12 June 23:09 email about lawyer and meeting arrangements.
What Smith Knew
Believed he was talking to his former friend Brenton Jowett. The account name "bJow_ett" was a deliberate mimicry. Had identified this to the OIC in writing. Attached full conversation transcript showing six weeks of contact, including bJow_ett demanding "Send me some cash then."
What @kandykingX Did
Tony says @kandykingX created bJow_ett to impersonate his friend and gave police a cropped version of their conversation, with Tony’s profile picture removed, as "harassment from an unknown profile." Tony connects this with Item 7, the complainant’s documents listed in the index but absent from his served copy.
What Police Did (OIC Dellenty)
Smith identified bJow_ett in his 9 June 2024 correspondence. Dellenty’s 13 June email says "please stop emailing me"; it immediately quotes his separate 12 June message. The Facts Sheet says the sending profile’s picture was later updated to show Smith (served brief, PDF p.7); Rushton’s statement names the profile as uernam_here (PDF p.13, paragraph 6). Tony says his account already displayed his photo and identifies the conversation as bJow_ett.
The Instagram Account — Follower Records Contradict the Sworn Statement
The follower export shows @beat_slaya dated 26 July 2023, the earliest visible entry. Tony identifies it as his first follower and as @kandykingX's alias — four months before @kandykingX swore he discovered it on 23 November 2023.
The retained still from the OIC’s screen recording (Brief Item 10) shows beat_slaya comments. Tony identifies that account as @kandykingX; the upper post shows 10 November without a year, and the comments show ‘1w’. The prosecution proceeded regardless.
Meta Follower Export — @beat_slaya
The follower export shows @beat_slaya at 2:34 AM on 26 July 2023, its earliest visible entry. Tony identifies it as his first follower — four months before @kandykingX swore on 23 November 2023 that a friend had only just made him aware of the page.
Meta Platforms Business Record; Instagram follower export; Brief Item 8; OIC screen recording Item 10 · View follower exportDownload follower exportView Item 10 analysisTony’s Eleven Grounds
The table below sets out Tony’s allegations about OIC Constable Dellenty and prosecutor Nicholas Nicolas. His separately linked nine-ground exhibit is a submission to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission LECC CASE20237645/RT.
| # | Ground | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Refused to identify the bJow_ett account despite receiving full conversation thread | Dellenty email record |
| 2 | Refused written exculpatory evidence from PTSD-affected interstate defendant; required in-person interview | Dellenty emails; psychologist's report |
| 3 | Item 7 (documents provided by Victim) absent from Smith’s served brief | Brief contents page · served-brief excerpt |
| 4 | Gmail subscriber request iASK_12796713 obtained 11 days before charging and never disclosed | REV-2025-0858525 p.135 |
| 5 | Case report C78394809 lists Instagram subscriber request ITM0169943 as created 18 January 2023. Meta records legalabuse registration on 24 August 2022. (REV-2025-0858525 · released p.135 / PDF p.148 · 1 August 2025; Brief H81615839 · PDF p.17, Meta p.1 · generated 5 February 2024.) | REV-2025-0858525 p.135 |
| 6 | Charged 99 days after the iASK communication-record search returned a total result count of zero; result was in the brief as Item 9 | iASK_12647763; charging 12/05/2024 |
| 7 | OIC's own screen recording showed @kandykingX as first follower of legalabuse from July 2023; Facts Sheet omitted this | Brief Item 8; Meta follower export |
| 8 | Account was public-interest disclosure tagged at police accountability bodies; @kandykingX simultaneously posting threats from drug supply account | legalabuse posts; LECC email 8 Nov 2023 |
| 9 | Destruction of case file information after dismissal on 10 June 2025; QLD welfare referral 15 days later | REV-2025-0858525; QLD Health RTI JIAU25/13749 |
| 10 | Disputed COPS entry recording Smith "picked up and hung up" — the separate iASK search for the same service returned zero communication records for the alleged week | iASK_12647763; MF/2025/2287; C78394809 |
| 11 | False COPS entry recording Smith "refused to provide his current address" — no such request exists in any email record | C78394809; GIPA email correspondence |
The Dismissal
The matter was listed for hearing at Downing Centre Local Court before Magistrate Milledge on 10 June 2025. The prosecution applied for an adjournment on the basis that the complainant was attending a medical appointment, and the matter was stood down to 11 a.m.
The complainant attended court briefly thereafter, then left after midday without notice to the prosecution. When the matter resumed, police were unable to locate him and contacted him by telephone. The complainant's reported reason for leaving was, in substance, that he "never gets a fair chance in court." A further adjournment was refused. The charge was withdrawn by police and dismissed by the Court.
The defence application for costs was refused. Tony says he attended police on the same day and provided the Cybertrace forensic report (Ref: 2025-4663) regarding @kandykingX's continuing conduct.
Court Outcome — 10 June 2025
Charge withdrawn by police. Matter dismissed by the Court. Costs application refused. Complainant's counsel present but complainant had left without giving evidence.
Wilson Tighe, O'Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors, letter 16 June 2025 · ViewDownload · TR0158862 hearing transcriptEvidence Destruction — Dellenty Admission
GIPA Internal Review REV-2025-0858525 records that Constable Dellenty advised:
The review records Dellenty’s advice that information was deleted after the court matter ended. Item 7 is listed on the contents sheet stamped 27 May 2025 and absent from the brief served on 29 May.
The Welfare Referral — 25 June 2025
Fifteen days after the court matter was dismissed, an officer at Kings Cross PAC identifying himself as "Brendan," using internal extension 40027, sent a referral to Queensland Health Mental Health Call Team requesting a welfare assessment of Smith.
On 27 June 2025, Brendan sent a follow-up email stating the reason:
Released GIPA records under REV-2025-0858528 do not record the Triple Zero call said to have prompted the referral. The InfoLink officer wrote it would be "very unusual for NSW police officers wishing to report concerns for a person resident in another state to contact an agency other than the Police Force in that area."
What Smith Knew
Had lodged a complaint with Federal Cabinet Minister Tanya Plibersek at 3:33 AM that morning and did not know a welfare referral was being initiated. The clinical record states "nil history on CIMHA," records no identified homicidal thoughts and a denial of current suicidal thoughts, records intact capacity, and later states "no rationale for MHA" and "Close to RCACT."
What @kandykingX Did
Left court without giving evidence 15 days earlier. Not directly involved in this specific action. Separate proceedings ongoing in Newcastle.
What Police Did
Officer "Brendan" (ext 40027) phoned QLD Health at ~10:00 AM. Wrote his stated reason was the ministerial complaint. Cited a Triple Zero call that the released GIPA records do not record. Used the same extension as Professional Standards Duty Officer (Inspector Winch).
On 27 June, the record states that feedback was emailed to the referring police officer. The final page records that the referral PDF was sent to Queensland Police because Queensland Health had no information-sharing memorandum with NSW Police. View the complete 16-page redacted release.
Key Evidence
OIC Item 10 — Screen Recording Analysis and Still
The OIC's screen recording of the @legalabuse account was created on 1 December 2023. The published still from approximately 0:06 shows @beat_slaya activity and a Houston, Texas login alert. The analysis and still are published separately; the full recording remains held by the defence.
View analysisDownload analysisView screenshotDownload screenshot
iASK Communication-Record Search — 12647763
Completed 3 February 2024 for 1–7 September 2023. Total Result Count: 0 for the searched service and week. The page does not identify a carrier. Separate Optus invoices show normal August charges, nominal September charges and zero October charges, but the exact disconnection date is not stated in the audited records. Held 99 days before the charging decision. Brief Item 9.
ViewDownloadGIPA Internal Review — Record Destruction
REV-2025-0858525. Dellenty admission: "some information she had received that was not saved on ViewIMS had been deleted." Court case dismissed 10 June 2025.
View 13-page decisionDownloadItem 7 Enquiry — Winch Repeats Communication Ban
On 28 June 2026 Smith asked what documents comprised Item 7, why they were absent from the served brief, and whether they remained held. Inspector Winch did not answer those questions; she restated the direction not to contact any Kings Cross Police officer except in an emergency.
ViewDownload This correspondence concerns Item 7; it is not Item 7 itself.