NSW Police Accountability

The Kandy King
X Case


For years I reported online impersonation and harassment that NSW Police did not investigate as cybercrime. Instead, I was the one prosecuted. This is the documented record — what I reported, what was done instead, and the procedural questions that remain.

Start Here The Questions
Start Here

I Reported the Crime. They Charged Me.

I'm Anthony Smith. From 2020 I reported to NSW Police that someone was impersonating me online — using my name and photographs across a network of accounts that publicly link to one another and forward to a single handle, @kandykingX. I gave police account links, screenshots, financial traces and correspondence.

NSW Police did not investigate what I reported as cybercrime. Instead, I was the one prosecuted — three times. Two of those prosecutions collapsed in court: one ended in a finding of not guilty after a hearing, once phone records showed the call I was accused of making was never made; the other was withdrawn when the complainant refused to give evidence. The third resulted in a conviction — for sending two images. They were footage from my own home security cameras, showing the person I had reported inside my apartment. I received the minimum penalty the law allowed. The break-in and identity theft that footage documented have never been investigated.

This site is not a verdict. It is a record of what I reported, what was done instead, and the documented decisions I am asking to have examined.

"Still no hate Ike. I've got no reason to be angry at you. If you work things out I'm sure you can find a way to get in touch again. Take care man."
— My reply, September 2020, to Issac Rushton — the person I had been reporting, and who I allege operates the @kandykingX accounts. He had just told me my profile was "all with the police." At the time I assumed he was struggling, and wanted to leave his dignity intact.

If you are a journalist or work for an oversight body, the Documents section sets out the records, and unredacted originals are available on request.

A Documented Anomaly

The Disproof Was in the Brief

99 days

In the third prosecution, police obtained the carrier records for the phone call I was accused of making. They were received on 3 February 2024 and returned a result of zero — no such call existed, and the number had already been cancelled. The decision to charge me was made 99 days later, on 12 May 2024. The nil-result was not disclosed in the brief of evidence served on me.

See the full prosecution record →

The Questions

The Questions This Archive Examines

This archive does not ask you to assume motive. It asks whether the documented decisions warrant independent scrutiny.

Each question is examined below with dates, references and documents. The further you read, the more specific the records become.

Timeline

The Case at a Glance

A chronological spine drawn from records, complaint receipts and correspondence. It is deliberately limited to documented events — the substance of the proceedings against me is dealt with separately. Event and reference numbers can be checked against the source documents in the Records section.

September 2020
The first message
I receive the first message telling me I had been reported to police. I do not yet understand what is happening.
2020 – 2021
My identity is compromised
I discover that my devices and accounts have been accessed, and that online profiles are appearing in my name. I begin reporting it to NSW Police.
December 2020 – January 2021
Applications are made against me
Two private apprehended-violence applications are brought against me. Both fail. From this point I appear in proceedings as a respondent rather than as a complainant.
September 2021
I report harassment
I formally report ongoing harassment and intimidation by phone and email (Event E83652754).
24 January 2022
Police apply for an order against me
NSW Police apply for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order against me, for the protection of the person I had been reporting. A provisional order is served the same day (Event E88153716).
April – July 2022
I report fraud and identity theft
I make formal reports of fraud and identity theft at Surry Hills (Events E86657020 and E92324688).
16 November 2022
I relocate to Queensland
I move permanently to Queensland. From this point, the reports I make and the records that follow involve cross-border handling between NSW Police and Queensland authorities.
2023
Cybercrime reclassified as a "domestic" matter
My cybercrime complaint is recategorised as a domestic matter rather than investigated as cybercrime (ReportCyber CIRS-20230218-112).
February – May 2024
A nil-result, not disclosed
Carrier records obtained on 3 February 2024 show no calls on the number I was accused of using. The charging decision is made 99 days later, on 12 May 2024. The nil-result is not disclosed in the brief served on me.
October – November 2024
I report again
I lodge further reports about drug sales conducted in my name (CIRS-20241002-79 and CIRS-20241121-242). The accounts continue to operate.
April 2025
I commission a forensic report
I commission Cybertrace. It links a Microsoft account created in my name to the named suspect, and recommends specific actions to law enforcement. They are not acted on.
June 2025
A complaint to Parliament — then a welfare check
The same day I escalate my complaints to Federal Parliament, a welfare intervention is initiated against me in Queensland. The GIPA records I have since obtained do not record the Triple Zero call said to have prompted it.
2025 – ongoing
Escalation continues
With the matter unresolved, I escalate to the Queensland Premier and to oversight bodies. The questions set out on this page remain unanswered.
Overview

Reported as a Victim. Prosecuted as the Accused.

Between 2020 and 2025 I reported to NSW Police that I was the target of sustained online impersonation and harassment — that someone was using my name and photographs across multiple accounts, including to advertise illicit drugs, and was making false complaints against me. The person I identified operates online as @kandykingX, and under further handles including @frost_rich, @The_real_Tony_smith and @Au_BigFella.

The conduct I reported was not investigated. Over the same period, NSW Police prosecuted me three times. Two of those prosecutions collapsed in court — one a finding of not guilty after hearing, the other withdrawn when the complainant declined to give evidence. The third resulted in a conviction for sharing an intimate image without consent — security-camera footage of the person I had reported, inside my home — for which I received the minimum penalty available, and which triggered a protection order the court had no discretion to refuse. The same police prosecutor, Nicholas Nicolas, appeared in each.

In June 2025, the same day I escalated my complaints to Federal Parliament, a welfare intervention was initiated against me in Queensland. The GIPA records I have since obtained do not record the Triple Zero call said to have prompted it. How that intervention came to be ordered is one of the questions this archive asks.

The records I hold raise specific questions I am asking oversight bodies to examine — each set out, with references, in the sections below:

3Times Prosecuted
5Years Targeted
Same DayComplaint → Welfare Referral · 25 Jun 2025
2States Involved
0Accountability
Pre-NSW Background

A Pre-Existing Queensland Record

The events documented on this site take place in New South Wales between 2020 and 2026. They are not the first contact of @kandykingX with the criminal justice system. @kandykingX has a Queensland Magistrates Court record between 2011 and 2019 — five charges across four hearings in Brisbane, including possession of drug utensils (2011), possession of dangerous drugs and utensils (2015), contravention of a Domestic Violence Order (2015 — charge dismissed), and drug-driving with a relevant drug in blood or saliva (2019 — conviction recorded). The full certified record, with magistrate names, case file references, statute citations and outcomes, is set out in the Court Record section at the end of this page.

When NSW Police, beginning in 2021, were assessing complaints involving @kandykingX, the Queensland record above was not visible in their COPS database. The agency was assessing matters without the multi-jurisdictional history. The Queensland record is included on this page not as character evidence but as material context: there was a documented prior history. The current criminal proceedings against @kandykingX in NSW continue that record.

Source: Queensland Magistrates Court records, Brisbane registry; Form 44 Verdict and Judgment Records held in evidence — see Court Record section for case file references.

What I Reported

The Impersonation Network — and the Forensic Report Police Did Not Act On

For years I gave NSW Police evidence that an online operation was using my identity — my name and my photographs — across encrypted messaging and social platforms, including to advertise the sale of illicit drugs. In 2025 I commissioned a professional forensic investigation by Cybertrace to examine it. The report made findings, and made specific recommendations to law enforcement. They were not acted on.

🧬

Accounts Using My Name

The report examined Telegram accounts carrying the display name "Tony Smith" — including @The_real_Tony_smith and @frost_rich — and found them advertising the sale of illicit substances. It could not independently confirm who operated those two accounts; I had identified the operator and supplied supporting material.

🪪

A Microsoft Account in My Name

The report linked an email address it attributed to the named suspect to a Microsoft account created under the name "Anthony Smith," and concluded this was evidence that my identity was being used online. It was the clearest attribution in the report.

📋

What the Report Recommended

It recommended that police obtain account records from Telegram for the two accounts, and make a forensic data request to the relevant internet provider to identify the user behind the IP address used to post drug advertisements in my name.

🚫

What Happened Next

Those recommendations were not acted on. Kings Cross Police had earlier recorded a decision not to investigate further. No charge followed against the person I had identified, and the accounts using my name continued to operate.

A Tale of Two Reports

The Victim's Report — Ignored

Crime reported: Identity theft, drug trafficking, forgery, stalking

Subject: @kandykingX

Evidence provided: A commissioned forensic report with recommendations to police, Telegram drug-sale logs, bank records, video evidence

Police response: A recorded decision not to investigate further. The forensic report's recommendations to law enforcement were not acted on.

The Perpetrator's Report — Prosecuted

Crime reported: Harassment via a single alleged missed phone call

Subject: Anthony Smith (the original whistleblower)

Evidence provided: An unverified sworn statement from @kandykingX

Police response: Pursuit across state lines. The OIC received the Telstra blue-portal carrier records (iASK_12647763) showing nil results — no calls made or received on the alleged number across the 7-day search period — on 3 February 2024. The charging decision was made 99 days later, on 12 May 2024. The nil-result was not disclosed in the brief of evidence served on the defendant.

The Victim's Report The Perpetrator's Report $4,600 Cybertrace Report IP, Telegram logs, banking, video Single alleged phone call One sworn statement NSW Police NSW Police "Incoherent" Not investigated — END — Cross-state pursuit · Charge laid Brief prepared (incomplete) Hearing — 10 June 2025 Dismissed

The Operational Evidence

The Cybertrace forensic report (Ref: 2025-4663) and my collected evidence document the @kandykingX operation in detail. Key elements visible in the public record include:

The "Kandy" Drug Service

The @kandykingX Telegram account operates under the public-facing alias "Kandy" with the bio: "Imported sweets, come join the fray, For girls and boys who party and play! · Kings cross · Open Most Evenings"

Located by referenced address: 84 Darlinghurst Rd, Potts Point NSW 2011.

Peer ID: 7515693902.

Identity-Theft Account

The Telegram account @The_real_Tony_smith uses my name and photographs to advertise drug sales — the same identity that NSW Police charged me with using to "harass" @kandykingX.

Funnel Architecture

The drug service operates a structured customer funnel: Squirt.org profile "RandyManDan" → Telegram @Au_BigFella (referral account with bio noting "This acc is no longer monitored, please contact @kandykingX") → primary @kandykingX drug account.

Sample message captured in the chat logs: "Most of operation haha how do we do it safely. this looks like well can set up so you must have a way of transaction that ensures the seller and buyer are safe from police setups."

Paid Drug Use Service

Documented Telegram offerings include arrangements described as a paid drug-injection service operating from the Kings Cross / Potts Point area, with delivery via Uber Parcel. I provided this evidence to police on multiple occasions.

Forged Banking Records

An ING bank statement was tendered as evidence in earlier proceedings (involving an associated victim) that contained four independent indicators of forgery: duplicate pages with identical transactions, formatting failures on page 3, a missing ten-day period creating mathematical discrepancy, and duplicate government payment reference numbers. NSW Police declined to verify the statement with ING despite the verbal admission of one officer that it "could have but chose not to" do so.

The Cybertrace Forensic Conclusion

The Cybertrace report identified @kandykingX's email address as linked to a Microsoft account created under the name "Anthony Smith" — proving the identity theft. ISP: Swoop. IP: 103.53.118.254. The report cost I $4,600 and was provided to NSW Police. S/Cst Duncan Handley dismissed it as "incoherent". Kings Cross PAC formally decided "to not investigate further".

Source: Cybertrace Report Ref 2025-4663; Sydney Party Animals Telegram chat logs; Squirt.org capture; Telegram account screenshots; Crime Stoppers reports 996961, 999823, 1002693, 1012217, 1015185.

Acknowledged in Writing, Then Not Acted Upon

The De Angeli Acknowledgement

Plain Clothes Senior Constable Joseph De Angeli of Kings Cross Criminal Investigations corresponded with me during November 2024 regarding the Telegram accounts trading on my name and likeness. I had provided detailed evidence including screenshots of @kandykingX's drug-selling Telegram account renamed to "Tony Smith" (@The_real_Tony_smith), pricing for ounce/half-ounce/gram quantities, an MS Teams account opened under my name linked to @kandykingX's gmail address, the @Au_BigFella / @frost_rich master account, and the Squirt.app and Scruff.app cross-referenced profiles.

De Angeli's reply on 29 November 2024 contains three distinct statements, all in the same email.

First — acknowledgement that the alias was in use

"Based on the information and evidence you've provided; I can confirm that [@kandykingX] appears to be using your first and last name as an alias."
PC Sen Cst Joseph De Angeli (Kings Cross CIB, ext 40108), email to me, 29 November 2024 · square brackets indicate substitution of the original name for the alias used throughout this site

Second — refusal to investigate the identity theft as an offence

In the same email, De Angeli set out his reasoning for declining to investigate the identity-theft component under sections 192I, 192J and 192K of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW):

"In this case, while [@kandykingX] appears to have used your name as an alias online, this does not meet the threshold for an offence under these sections. Using an alias, even if it matches your name, does not establish that he had possession of your personal identification documents or information, nor does it demonstrate intent to use your identity to commit an indictable offence. Without clear evidence of these elements, the conduct does not constitute an offence under sections 192K or 192J … In this case, a person using a name matching yours, would not suffice in these circumstances."
Same email — 29 November 2024 · square brackets indicate substitution of the original name

Third — undertaking to refer the drug-supply allegations

The same email closed with a written undertaking to refer the drug-supply component to other officers:

"I acknowledge the seriousness of your allegations regarding drug supply and have noted the information you provided. I will pass this on to the relevant officers for further consideration."
Same email — 29 November 2024

A subsequent GIPA application sought records of any such internal referral being made. The agency response was that no such record was held. The position taken by Superintendent Walters in the subsequent s.132 closure letter of 19 December 2025 — over twelve months later — adopted the same s.192I/J/K analysis as the basis for declining further investigation of the matter at Command level.

The investigating officer with the case in front of him acknowledged in writing that the identity theft was occurring. He simultaneously, in the same email, set out the legal analysis under which it would not be investigated as an offence. He gave a written undertaking that the drug-supply component would be passed to the appropriate unit. NSW Police's own records, accessed under the GIPA Act, do not establish that any such referral was made.

Source: Email from PC Sen Cst Joseph De Angeli ([email protected], extension 40108) to me, 29 November 2024, subject "RE: Urgent Update: Impersonation and Concerns Regarding [name redacted] [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive, ACCESS=Personal-Privacy]". GIPA application response: "Not Held" finding on records of internal referral. Walters s.132 closure letter EXT2025-7535, 19 December 2025.

The Three Prosecutions

Each Case Failed

Three prosecutions. One complainant (@kandykingX). One prosecutor (Nicholas Nicolas). Three OICs (Hammer, Mewburn, Dellenty). In each case, the brief contained evidence directly incompatible with the sworn allegations — and in each case the prosecution proceeded regardless.

In their result, all three were failures of the prosecution. One ended in a finding of not guilty after hearing. One was withdrawn and dismissed when the complainant would not give evidence. And the first — after extraordinary police effort — produced only two $500 fines, for sending two images that were themselves footage of conduct I had reported and police had refused to investigate.

Prosecution 1✓ Dismissed — Not Guilty

Bail Breach

H91613788 · June – August 2022 · Sydney City PAC · OIC: Hammer

NSW Police alleged Smith breached bail by contacting @kandykingX via Signal. The prosecution relied on Optus subscriber records to prove it.

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.

Prosecution 2✓ 5 of 7 Counts Dismissed

Intimate Image Offences & AVO Breach

January – August 2022 · Surry Hills · OIC: Mewburn

Seven counts: four of recording an intimate image (s.91P Crimes Act 1900), two of distribution (s.91Q), one AVO breach. Four recording counts and the AVO breach dismissed — not guilty. Two distribution counts: $500 fines each on recklessness as to consent.

Prosecution 3✓ Withdrawn & Dismissed at Hearing

Carriage Service Offence — Federal

H81615839 · May 2024 – June 2025 · Downing Centre Local Court · OIC: Constable Dellenty

Charged under s.474.17 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Three allegations: (1) Smith called @kandykingX on 4 September 2023 from mobile [number redacted]; (2) Smith sent messages from an "unknown profile" on 17–18 July 2023; (3) Smith operated the "legalabuse" Instagram account, which @kandykingX claimed not to have discovered until 23 November 2023.

How the Brief Was Built

Eleven Grounds of OIC and Prosecutor Misconduct

The third prosecution (H81615839) was dismissed on 10 June 2025 when @kandykingX refused to give evidence. The conduct of the Officer in Charge (OIC Constable Dellenty, Kings Cross PAC) and the prosecutor (Nicholas Nicolas, who appeared in all three prosecutions) is the subject of a standalone exhibit lodged with the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC CASE20237645/RT). The eleven grounds are summarised below. Each is documented from official records already produced under GIPA or contained in the Brief of Evidence.

#GroundSource
1Refused to identify the bjow_ett account despite receiving full conversation threadDellenty email record
2Refused written exculpatory evidence from PTSD-affected interstate defendant; required in-person interviewDellenty emails; psychologist's report
3Item 7 (documents provided by victim) absent from served brief — the foundational fabricated-evidence documentBrief contents page vs served pages
4Gmail subscriber request iASK_12796713 obtained 11 days before charging and never disclosedREV-2025-0858525 page 135
5Blue Portal subscriber request for legalabuse account dated 18 January 2023 — 10 months before complaint, when account did not yet exist as referencedREV-2025-0858525 page 135
6Charged 99 days after Telstra carrier records returned nil result for the alleged phone call; result not disclosediASK_12647763; charging date 12/05/2024
7OIC's own screen recording showed @kandykingX as first follower of legalabuse account from July 2023; Facts Sheet omitted this and described "unknown profile" until NovemberBrief Item 8; Meta follower export
8Account was public-interest disclosure tagged at police accountability bodies; @kandykingX simultaneously posting threats from @kandykingX drug supply accountlegalabuse posts; LECC email dated 8 November 2023
9Destruction of case file information after dismissal on 10 June 2025; retaliatory QLD welfare referral 16 days laterREV-2025-0858525 OIC admission; QLD Health RTI JIAU25/13749
10False COPS entry recording that I "picked up and hung up" on a phone number — Telstra records confirm zero calls and the number had been cancellediASK_12647763; Privacy Internal Review MF/2025/2287
11False COPS entry recording that I "refused to provide my current address" — no such request exists in any email record; service was completed by email without issueCase Report C78394809; GIPA email correspondence release

The eleven grounds as originally lodged are supplemented in subsequent submissions to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission with a twelfth ground arising from the 15 March 2026 telephone exchange with Inspector Plumber, in which a Kings Cross PAC Inspector advised me to stop submitting evidence relating to the matters under complaint.

Source: "Standalone LECC Exhibit: OIC and Prosecutor Misconduct in H81615839" lodged April 2026 under LECC CASE20237645/RT.

The Foundational Fabricated Evidence

The bjow_ett Entrapment Account

The third prosecution (H81615839) rested on Instagram messages allegedly sent by me 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.

The documentary evidence establishes:

  1. The account was an impersonation. @kandykingX created the Instagram account "bjow_ett" in February 2023 — five months before the alleged messages — using the name and visual identity of a friend I had known in Queensland in 2013. I believed for three months that I was talking to that friend.
  2. The friend has confirmed in writing he was impersonated. On 25 December 2024 the friend confirmed in writing: "I've never seen or heard of [@kandykingX]." He confirmed he did not operate the bjow_ett account.
  3. The Facts Sheet content was my messages to the impersonator. The "narrative of Ancient Greece" described in the Facts Sheet matches verbatim the messages I sent on 17 July 2023 to the bjow_ett account, believing I was talking to my friend.
  4. The OIC was told the account was bjow_ett. I identified the bjow_ett account to OIC Dellenty in writing on 9 June 2024. Dellenty replied "please stop emailing me" on 13 June 2024 and took no investigative action.
  5. @kandykingX's surveillance of my account predates the "unknown profile" narrative. @kandykingX's alias account @beat_slaya followed my personal account on 10 June 2023 and liked posts. The bjow_ett account followed seven days later on 17 June 2023. My profile photo had been the same since 2017 — the Facts Sheet narrative that the victim "was initially unaware who the profile belonged to" is contradicted by @kandykingX's own surveillance pattern documented in the brief.
  6. The OIC's investigation was structurally barred. Dellenty refused to accept written exculpatory evidence from me. I have documented PTSD and am unable to attend NSW Police stations in person. She insisted I attend Kings Cross Police Station for a recorded interview as the only acceptable form of communication. Written representations were refused as "inadmissible".

The "documents provided by victim" item (Item 7) of the Brief of Evidence is absent from the brief as served. This is the item that would contain the screenshots @kandykingX showed police to support his claim — the foundational document of the alleged offending.

"Please stop emailing me."
OIC Constable Claudine Dellenty to me, 13 June 2024 — in response to written submission identifying the bjow_ett account

Source: Brief of Evidence H81615839; my sent email of 9 June 2024 and Dellenty's reply of 13 June 2024; Brenton J. email confirmation of 25 December 2024; Meta Platforms Business Record (in brief).

Weaponized Welfare — June 25–27, 2025

Same Day to Retaliation

On 25 June 2025, Anthony Smith lodged a formal complaint with the office of the Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP — a Federal Cabinet Minister — detailing the Kings Cross PAC's multi-year failure to investigate identity theft, drug trafficking, and hacking by @kandykingX. The documentary record establishes that Kings Cross Police initiated the cross-border welfare referral to Queensland Health on the morning of 25 June 2025 — the same day the complaint was lodged, and before the Plibersek correspondence had even been formally forwarded to the NSW Minister for Police.

25 June 2025 · 03:33 AM
Formal Complaint Lodged with Federal Cabinet Minister's Office

I email a formal complaint to the office of Hon Tanya Plibersek MP detailing @kandykingX criminal operation and Kings Cross PAC failure to investigate.

Source: My sent email record

25 June 2025 · ~10:00 AM
Officer "Brendan" Phones QLD Health — Before the Complaint Was Even Forwarded

Officer "Brendan" (extension 40027) Kings Cross Proactive Crime Team makes a telephone referral to Queensland Health Redcliffe-Caboolture Mental Health.

Source: Subject line of subsequent email "YOUR PHONE CALL REFERRAL THIS MORNING" — QLD Health RTI JIAU25/13749

25 June 2025 · 10:53 AM
Officer Brendan Emails MHCALL RedCab Following Up the Phone Referral

Officer Brendan emails MHCALL RedCab ([email protected]) following up the phone referral made earlier that morning.

Source: QLD Health RTI JIAU25/13749

25 June 2025 · 12:44 PM
Plibersek Office Formally Forwards to NSW Police Minister

Plibersek office formally forwards correspondence by ministerial referral to Hon Yasmin Catley MP, NSW Minister for Police.

Source: GIPA 925657 page 103 — Annexures to Report - Advice re Plibersek correspondence

26 June 2025 · 10:01 AM
"HIGH IMPORTANCE" Email Reaches Central Metropolitan Region Command

"HIGH IMPORTANCE" email from Police Commissioner's office reaches Central Metropolitan Region Command demanding response on Plibersek correspondence.

Source: GIPA 925657

27 June 2025 · 10:02 AM
Officer Brendan Sends Follow-Up Email Admitting Motive

Officer Brendan sends follow-up email to MHCALL RedCab admitting motive: "the gentleman has made further complaints to a Federal Ministers Office and I need to respond to them."

Source: QLD Health RTI JIAU25/13749

27 June 2025 · 3:32 PM
QLD Health Forwards NSW Police Referral to QPS Mental Health Coordinator

Lynne Campbell (Queensland Health, Redcliffe-Caboolture Mental Health Intervention Coordinator) forwards NSW Police referral to Queensland Police Service Mental Health Coordinator with attachment titled "Anthony Smith NSW police referral.pdf".

Source: QLD Health RTI JIAU25/13749

The corrected story: Kings Cross initiated the welfare referral on the morning of 25 June, before the Plibersek correspondence had been formally forwarded to the Minister. The welfare referral was set in motion on the same day the complaint was first sent to Plibersek's office (at 3:33 AM that morning), and was already executing by the time the High Importance email landed at the Command the following morning.

"...the reason why I ask... is the gentleman... has made further complaints to a Federal Ministers Office and I need to respond to them."
Kings Cross Police Officer 'Brendan' — email to Queensland Health, 27 June 2025, 10:02 AM · Source: QLD Health RTI Release JIAU25/13749

The Corrected Sequence — 25–27 June 2025

25 JUN · 03:33
Complaint to Plibersek
Sent email record
25 JUN · ~10:00
Brendan phones QLD Health
RTI JIAU25/13749
25 JUN · 10:53
Brendan email follow-up
RTI JIAU25/13749
25 JUN · 12:44
Plibersek forwards to Catley
GIPA 925657 p.103
26 JUN · 10:01
HIGH IMPORTANCE to Command
GIPA 925657
27 JUN · 10:02
Admission of motive
RTI JIAU25/13749
27 JUN · 15:32
QLD Health → QPS
RTI JIAU25/13749

This is not ambiguous. The officer did not write "I am concerned for this person's welfare." He wrote "I need to respond to them" — referring to a Federal Minister's office. The welfare referral was an administrative response to a political complaint, not a health intervention. The same-day mobilisation of a cross-border welfare referral, combined with the absence of any Triple Zero record (GIPA REV-2025-0858528) and the officer's own written admission of motive, establishes the operational character of the response.

The Evidence — Four Documented Falsehoods

The 'Brendan' Email Chain

The email sent by Kings Cross Officer 'Brendan' to Queensland Health on 25 June 2025 contains four demonstrable falsehoods — each contradicted by official records obtained under GIPA or the QLD Right to Information Act.

Queensland Health Clinical Assessment — The Result Official Record

Official Clinical Record · Redcliffe-Caboolture Crisis Assessment & Treatment · 25 June 2025 · CIMHA Form · JIAU25/13749

"Anthony was calm and polite during the telephone conversation, rapport was developed, and he engaged willingly and with ease during assessment. Socially appropriate. Able to share information."

Speech: Normal range in rate, tone, and volume.

Mood: "I am upset NSW Police this is not fair."

No homicidal thoughts identified or voiced during assessment.

Anthony denies current thoughts and plans of suicide.

Anthony denies current thoughts and plans of harming others.

Insight & Judgement: Intact. Anthony does have capacity currently to make informed decisions about his mental health care.

MDT review (Dr G Carrasco, SMO): "No rationale for MHA. Declined service." — Case closed to RCACT.

GIPA Internal Review Notice of Decision · REV-2025-0858528 · 8 August 2025 · Ian Steptoe, Senior Advisory Officer, InfoLink

"It was determined under section 58(1)(b) of the GIPA Act, that it did not hold any information relating to a '000' call as described in the access application."

Internal review finding: "I have decided under section 58(1)(b) of the GIPA Act, that the agency does not hold the information requested by you."

"This office conducted a search in COPS for every 'concern for welfare' CAD message created in the Sydney City area (which includes Kings Cross) in the 48-hour period 25–26 June 2025. None of these messages related to you."

"I would also note that 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."

A Matter of Office Telephone Allocation — Extension 40027

Two officers are documented as using the same direct-dial extension at Kings Cross Police Area Command, 1–15 Elizabeth Bay Road, Elizabeth Bay NSW 2011.

Inspector Martha Winch

Professional Standards Duty Officer, Kings Cross PAC. Email signature on correspondence dated 20 September 2024 (released within GIPAA-2025-0943218, InfoLink pages 1–19): direct line (02) 8356 0027, extension 40027.

Officer "Brendan"

Kings Cross Proactive Crime Team. Email signature on correspondence to Queensland Health dated 25 June 2025 and 27 June 2025 (released under Queensland RTI Act, reference JIAU25/13749): extension 40027.

The two email signatures present the same Kings Cross PAC extension number. I have lodged a GIPA application seeking the holder or holders of extension 40027 across the relevant period and the rostering records for that line.

The significance of the documentary match is for readers, oversight bodies, and any journalist or lawyer reviewing the case to consider in light of the chronology already established: the cross-border welfare referral to Queensland Health on 25 June 2025 was made within hours of my complaint to the office of a Federal Cabinet Minister, by an officer using the same internal extension as the Professional Standards Duty Officer who, in October 2024, had foreshadowed restrictions on my contact with the command.

Source: Inspector Martha Winch email signature, GIPAA-2025-0943218 InfoLink release. Officer "Brendan" email signature, Queensland Health RTI release JIAU25/13749. Both documents in evidence.

The Operational Pattern

This Was Not Coincidence

Three prosecutions. Same prosecutor. Same complainant. Three OICs. Exculpatory material in each brief before charges were laid. A fabricated emergency deployed within hours of a ministerial complaint. Administrative shutdowns of evidence submission. Records deleted after prosecution collapsed. This is an operational pattern.

📡

Disproven Evidence Used Anyway

Prosecution 1: Optus records relied upon to prove Signal contact after OIC admitted in writing they would not show it.

🎮

Public Livestream as "Covert Recording"

Prosecution 2: Screenshots from @kandykingX's own public gaming broadcast charged as covert home recordings. Detective confirmed no offending images existed — 11 weeks before hearing.

📞

Disproof Inside the Same Brief

Prosecution 3: Telstra records showing no call was made sat in the same brief as the Facts Sheet alleging it. OIC held them 99 days before charging.

🔄

Victim Reports Became Charge Dates

The dates, content, and structure of Smith's uninvestigated victim reports appear to have been repurposed as the alleged offending dates in charges against him.

⏱️

Same Day — Complaint to Welfare Referral

Kings Cross Police initiated the cross-border welfare referral to QLD Health on the morning of 25 June 2025 — the same day the complaint was first sent to Plibersek's office, and before the correspondence had been formally forwarded to the NSW Minister. Justified by a Triple Zero call that GIPA REV-2025-0858528 confirms does not exist in any NSW Police record. Outcome at the 10 June 2025 hearing independently recorded in the defence solicitor's closing letter of 16 June 2025.

🏛️

Ministerial Briefings vs GIPA

Briefings to the NSW Minister for Police contained statements directly contradicted by records later released under GIPA.

📧

Official Communication Ban

Inspector Martha Winch (Professional Standards) formally ended communication on 9 December 2024: "my communication with you will be ending" and "You will not be provided any information regarding [subject] at any time."

🗑️

Records Destroyed After Prosecution Collapsed

NSW Police Internal Review (File: 3 858525): "Constable Dellenty advised that upon finalisation of the local court matter some information she had received that was not saved on ViewIMS had been deleted." Potential breach of the State Records Act 1998.

"Evidence is not what is seen, but what is ignored."
Kings Cross Police Area Command — A Failure of Duty (evidence-based analysis)
Ministerial Correspondence Becomes Police Self-Review

The Closed Loop

On 23 January 2026, I wrote directly to the Hon Yasmin Catley MP, NSW Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism. The correspondence was titled:

"Evidence of False Information Provided to Executive Government"

The letter set out specific, referenced evidence — drawn from NSW Police's own GIPA releases — documenting three materially false statements made to the Minister's office in earlier briefings. It cited:

The Minister's office referred the correspondence to NSW Police Force for response.

NSW Police responded on 19 February 2026 (reference F/2026/10870) under the signature of "Manager, Ministerial and Executive Services". The response addressed not a single piece of the documentary evidence I had supplied. It repeated, in materially the same form, the same claims that had been disproven in the original 23 January correspondence.

"The matters raised in your correspondence have been fully investigated by the NSWPF on a number of occasions. The NSWPF's Kings Cross Police Area Command has informed you that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate your claims of identity theft."
NSW Police response F/2026/10870, 19 February 2026 — sent on the Minister's behalf

The response made no reference to the specific GIPA-disclosed records I had cited, no reference to the QLD Health RTI release, no reference to the Cybertrace forensic report, and no reference to the COPS record destruction acknowledged by the OIC herself.

I replied to that letter addressing the deflection. That reply was not actioned.

What this establishes

The Minister did not see the evidence. The Minister referred the correspondence to the very police force whose conduct was the subject of the correspondence. The police drafted a response on behalf of the Minister that ignored every piece of evidence supplied. The response was sent under the Minister's authority. The political accountability mechanism reflected the police misconduct allegations back at the complainant as "insufficient evidence".

Source: My correspondence to Minister Catley dated 23 January 2026 ("Evidence of False Information Provided to Executive Government"); NSW Police response F/2026/10870 dated 19 February 2026; GIPA application to Office of the Minister for Police via The Cabinet Office, April 2026.

"We Don't Need Any More of That" — March 2026

The Most Recent Documented Officer Position

On 15 March 2026, I spoke by phone with Inspector Plumber of Kings Cross Police Area Command. The call lasted approximately one hour and eight minutes and was a follow-up to a portal complaint lodged five days earlier.

Contemporaneous notes of that call record the Inspector advising me to stop submitting evidence to NSW Police about the conduct documented elsewhere on this site. The Inspector's position, per the notes, was that the police service already held the material and that further submissions were unnecessary.

"We don't need to keep being sent this information."

"So we don't need any more of that. So we don't need the complaints — these ongoing complaints."
Inspector Plumber, Kings Cross PAC, telephone exchange with me — approximately 1h 6m into the call · 15 March 2026 · contemporaneous call notes held by me

In the same call, I described — in my own words — the documented destruction of evidence by the Officer in Charge of H81615839 following the dismissal of that prosecution on 10 June 2025: that data the OIC had received "was not saved on ViewIMS and has been deleted." That destruction is independently established by NSW Police's own GIPA Internal Review Notice of Decision (REV-2025-0858525), in which the OIC's admission is recorded by the agency.

This is a Kings Cross PAC Inspector, on the record in a substantial telephone exchange in March 2026, advising a documented complainant to stop submitting evidence relating to ongoing alleged offending — including evidence relating to an officer's destruction of records following a failed prosecution. It is the most recent documented officer position on the matter.

Source: Contemporaneous notes of telephone call between I and Inspector Plumber, Kings Cross PAC, 15 March 2026 (1h 8m duration). Cross-referenced with NSW Police GIPA Internal Review Notice of Decision REV-2025-0858525 (record destruction admission by OIC).

Use of the Protective Order Framework

The AVO Asymmetry

The Apprehended Violence Order framework in New South Wales is designed to protect people at risk of family or domestic violence. The documentary record in this matter discloses a pattern of asymmetric application.

January 2021
AVO Taken Out Against Me

Within five days of being housed by me, @kandykingX indicated to him that he would seek to add me to an existing AVO application in which @kandykingX was the respondent. NSW Police initiated an Apprehended Violence Order against me, with @kandykingX as the protected person. COPS Event records of this period are held in agency systems.

September 2022
My Own AVO Application Refused

I applied to NSW Police, Kings Cross PAC, for an Apprehended Violence Order against @kandykingX. The application was refused. I have sought records of that refusal via the GIPA Act.

2023–2025
Subsequent Protective-Order Attempts Not Accepted

Multiple subsequent attempts by me to report ongoing conduct — including impersonation, identity theft, drug trafficking under his impersonated identity, and online harassment — were not accepted as the foundation for protective orders against @kandykingX.

10 June 2025
Prosecution Prepared to Extend AVO Against Me

At the dismissal of the third prosecution (H81615839), the prosecution was prepared to seek an extension of the existing protective order against me. @kandykingX's failure to attend court to give evidence prevented that application from being advanced.

The framework was used in 2021 to bring me under a protective order in favour of @kandykingX. The same framework was not available to me against @kandykingX, despite multi-year documented reporting of escalating conduct.

Source: COPS Event records via GIPA disclosure; my AVO application records; H81615839 court records, Downing Centre Local Court, 10 June 2025; defence solicitor's closing letter, 16 June 2025.

Two False Entries — Drafted While Evidence Was Being Destroyed

The False COPS Entries

Two Conversations

The "Louis" Setup

Two conversations with a building concierge known as "Louis" — a person introduced into the matter by Detective Alex Chatfield — together raise a serious concern. I have set them out here from my own account and a preserved message export.

The first conversation — the "disappearance" offer

The first was in person, in 2022, before my first hearing. Out of nowhere, and contrary to everything else we had been discussing, Louis offered to "make him disappear" — meaning Rushton. I suspected a setup immediately. Had I engaged with it, the exchange could have been used as evidence that I was planning serious harm against the person I had reported. I did not engage.

The second conversation — the fabrication instruction

The second came later, by WhatsApp, and referred back to the first. In it, Louis indicated that Detective Chatfield had told him to "make something up" regarding making Rushton disappear. I preserved that exchange. It is documentary corroboration of a fabrication request that, until then, had rested on my recollection alone.

What the interaction reads as

The interaction reads in two directions. In one, it points to a detective directing a civilian to fabricate material against the person who had been reporting a crime. In the other, it positions that same civilian to draw me into a conversation that, had I engaged, would have generated grounds for a serious charge against me. I did not engage. I preserved the records and reported them.

Source: My contemporaneous account of the in-person conversation (2022, before the first hearing); WhatsApp export dated 20 February 2025; cross-referenced to COPS Event E83652754 (Detective Chatfield case file establishment, 24 January 2022).

Formal Government Escalation — 9 March 2026

Letter to the Queensland Premier

On 9 March 2026 — nine months after NSW Police deployed Queensland Health as a cross-border instrument of retaliation — a formal letter was sent directly to Queensland Premier David Crisafulli MP demanding a state-level response. The letter was titled: "Queensland Sovereignty and Resident Safety — NSW Police Weaponised Queensland Emergency Services Against a Political Complainant."

The core allegation to the Premier: A sworn officer of another state fabricated a mental health emergency to deploy Queensland's emergency resources against a Queensland resident — not to protect him, but to surveil him and retaliate for a lawful democratic act. It occurred on Queensland soil. It consumed Queensland resources. It was used to suppress accountability for documented misconduct — including an 18-month malicious prosecution that collapsed in court on 10 June 2025.

The full evidence chain — including the RTI release, the NSW GIPA denial, the clinical outcomes, and a complete timeline — was provided as a public record available on request.

The Letter — Key Evidence Points

RTI Evidence — QLD Health Records

RTI release JIA/U25/13749 from Queensland Health is now a public government record. It contains the NSW Police referral email and the officer's 27 June 2025 follow-up, which reads:

"The reason why I ask is the gentleman, as of yesterday, has made further complaints to a Federal Ministers Office and I need to respond to them."

This email — sent the day after the welfare check — establishes that the intervention was a response to ministerial complaints, not a health crisis.

GIPA Evidence — Triple Zero Doesn't Exist

NSW Police GIPA Decision (Ref: 0834658) confirms the Triple Zero call cited as the basis for the QLD emergency referral does not exist in any COPS record. NSW Police confirmed: "it did not hold any information relating to a '000' call as described in the access application."

A COPS search of every welfare CAD message in the Sydney City area for 25–26 June 2025 returned no record relating to the subject. The emergency was fabricated.

Four Formal Demands to the Premier

🏛️

1. CCC Investigation

That the Premier's office direct the Crime and Corruption Commission to investigate whether Queensland emergency services were improperly weaponised by interstate police through fabricated grounds.

⚖️

2. State-Level Complaint to NSW

That Queensland formally raise a state-level complaint with the NSW Government and the NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission regarding the misuse of Queensland's emergency referral framework by NSW Police.

📋

3. Legislative Reform

That Queensland consider legislative or inter-governmental agreement reforms to prevent Queensland residents from being targeted via interstate misuse of welfare referral protocols without jurisdictional authority or oversight.

🛡️

4. Protection from Further Retaliation

That Queensland ensure the subject is not subject to further cross-border retaliation while these matters are under investigation — given the pattern of conduct already documented.

"A Queensland resident was raided by proxy for complaining about police. You have the standing and the responsibility to respond."
Letter to Premier David Crisafulli MP · 9 March 2026 · Anthony Lawrence Smith, Scarborough QLD 4020
Enclosures provided to the Premier's Office — 9 March 2026

1. Political_Retaliation_The_Weaponized_State — Full case brief

2. GIPAA-2020-0834658 — Notice of Decision (no Triple Zero record)

3. 1 858928 IR NOD 2 — Internal Review Notice of Decision

4. Cybertrace Investigation — Impersonation and harassment documentation

5. SMITH Anthony JIA/U25_13749 C1238088 CIMHA — QLD Health RTI Release (clinical record and officer email chain)

Currently — A Separate Domestic Violence Matter Before the Court

A Separate DV Matter — Currently Before the Court

In April 2026, @kandykingX faced separate proceedings in regional New South Wales — a committal in matter 2026/00070993, with appearances scheduled at Newcastle Local Court on 22 April 2026 and Maitland Local Court on 23 April 2026.

The current proceedings are a separate domestic violence matter involving a separate complainant. They are not my case. The complainant's identity is not published here.

The relevance to the matters documented on this site is contextual:

  1. In January 2021, NSW Police were on notice of @kandykingX's conduct toward a different prior co-occupant. NSW Police nonetheless took an Apprehended Violence Order out against me — that is, against the documented victim of the impersonation and identity theft — on @kandykingX's report. The Order named @kandykingX as the protected person.
  2. When I subsequently applied to NSW Police, Kings Cross PAC, for an Apprehended Violence Order against @kandykingX (approximately September 2022), the application was refused.
  3. At the dismissal of the third prosecution on 10 June 2025, the prosecution had been preparing to seek an extension of the protective order in place against me. @kandykingX's failure to attend court that day to give evidence prevented that application.
  4. The current April 2026 committal — on a separate complainant's case — proceeds on the basis of the very pattern of conduct I first reported to Kings Cross PAC in 2021 and continuously thereafter, and which Kings Cross PAC declined to investigate.

Contemporaneous Captures — April 2026

In the lead-up to the current committal, contemporaneous evidence I captured records @kandykingX making explicit drug-supply admissions, self-disclosure of recent custody, and surveillance commentary on my identifiers. This material was provided to NSW Police via portal complaint on 19 April 2026 — two days before the committal date.

"I'm selling drugs here so I'm not going to send a face pic sorry"

Price list: "Hg 200 / G. 300 / Hb 400 / Ball 700"
Contemporaneous capture of @kandykingX messages — April 2026 · held by me · provided to NSW Police 19 April 2026
"Str8 fresh out of lock up — in need of cash"
@kandykingX message — 16 April 2026 · held by me
"So easy to trace people online :P"
Direct message to a separate identifier in my records — morning of 19 April 2026 · held by me

The NSW Police Response — 14 April 2026

A response from a NSW Police officer dated 14 April 2026 acknowledged in writing the evidentiary value of the material provided:

"…it does assist in providing evidence to his pattern of behaviour and long term offending both against domestic partners and in relation to drug and fraudulent activities."
Senior Constable Zach Manley, email to me, 14 April 2026

The same officer stated that the activity falls within Kings Cross PAC's geographical area and was therefore outside the responding officer's investigative capability.

The point. Kings Cross Police Area Command has, on the documentary record, declined to investigate @kandykingX's conduct against me since 2021. In the same period, other NSW commands have brought charges in matters arising from the same pattern of conduct against different complainants. The asymmetry is not an inference. It is a documented operational distinction.

Source: NSW Police Force charging records, matter 2026/00070993 (committal). SC Zach Manley email to me, 14 April 2026. Portal complaint records lodged 19 April 2026. Contemporaneous message captures held in evidence.

A Pattern of Non-Response

Promised Contact, No Reply

Separate from the complaints declined on their merits, there is a second pattern in the record: complaints that were acknowledged in writing, given a reference number, and met with an express promise that I would be contacted — after which no contact came. In each instance below the underlying concern about police failure to investigate was never reached, because the promised return of contact simply did not happen.

27 December 2024 — Customer Assistance Unit

CAS-2183884-M3H4 (RMS D/2024/1474623). My complaint was forwarded to Central Metropolitan Region for assessment, with the assurance that I "should be contacted by an officer from the above command within 21 days." No officer made contact.

9 March 2026 — Victims Services

The Commissioner of Victims Rights acknowledged my complaint under the Charter of Victims Rights and set out the enquiry powers available. I heard nothing further, and the complaint was not resolved or returned to me.

30 October 2025 — Kings Cross PAC

Superintendent Jill Walters confirmed my 29 October 2025 correspondence had been directed to the Professional Standards Duty Officer, Inspector Chris Whalley, who "will be in contact with you to discuss your concerns in further detail." Inspector Whalley did not make contact.

3 November 2025 — Customer Assistance Unit

CAS-2356895-X3W5. My formal complaint of investigative misconduct and malicious prosecution was forwarded to the Central Metropolitan Region Professional Standards Manager, with the assurance that someone "will contact you within a reasonable time, ordinarily within 21 days." A reply was sent, but it provided no details addressing the substance of the complaint.

These are not findings on the substance of what I reported — they are acknowledgements that went nowhere. The letters themselves are in the Documents section below.

Key Documents & Evidence

On the Record

The following documents are referenced across the prosecutions and the June 2025 retaliation. Each was either present in a brief of evidence, obtained under GIPA or RTI, or produced by a third-party forensic or clinical provider. Where a document is marked exculpatory, it was held by police prior to or at the time of charging.

Exculpatory

Telstra Carrier Records — iASK_12616400

Received by OIC: 3 February 2024 · 99 days before charge

Total Result Count: 0. No calls on [number redacted] during the alleged week. Service cancelled August 2023 — before the alleged call was made. Held in the same brief as the Facts Sheet alleging the call.

↓ View / download PDF
Exculpatory

Meta Platforms Business Record

Prosecution 3 brief · Downing Centre

Shows @kandykingX's alias @beat_slaya was the first follower of Smith's 'legalabuse' account from 26 July 2023 — four months before @kandykingX swore he discovered it on 23 November 2023.

↓ View / download PDF
Internal Police Record

OIC Screen Recording — Instagram Account

Prosecution 3 brief · H81615839

The OIC's own screen recording, held in the brief, showed @kandykingX commenting on Smith's posts before the date he swore he first became aware of the account's existence.

↓ View / download PDF
Internal Police Record

COPS Entry — Surry Hills Detective Review

Prosecution 2 · 11 weeks before hearing

Recorded in COPS: "police could not find any images that would constitute an offence." The four recording charges proceeded to hearing regardless.

GIPA-released COPS record — standalone PDF available on request to oversight bodies and journalists.
Exculpatory

OIC Written Admission — Optus Records

Prosecution 1 (AVO breach, H91613788) · Pre-hearing · July–August 2022

OIC Constable Hammer admitted via iMessage (7 Aug 2022): "The call was made through signal which would not show up on Optus call logs." COPS event E89743926 (Sgt Barlow, 24 Jul 2022) records Smith attending Day Street with Optus records to refute the allegation. Prosecution proceeded to hearing regardless.

↓ Hammer admission (PDF)↓ COPS event history (PDF)
Third-Party Forensic

Cybertrace Forensic Report

Provided to NSW Police · Not actioned

Identified @kandykingX's email as linked to a Microsoft account created under "Anthony Smith." ISP Swoop, IP 103.53.118.254. Police dismissed it as "incoherent."

↓ View / download PDF
GIPA Release — GIPA-2025-0925657

Commissioner's "High Importance" Email Chain

26 June 2025 · Central Metropolitan Region Command

Documents the ministerial complaint pathway: Plibersek → Catley → Commissioner's office → Kings Cross PAC. Establishes the direct causal chain from political complaint to welfare check mobilization.

↓ View / download PDF
RTI Release — JIAU25/13749

Queensland Health Records — Welfare Check File

25–27 June 2025 · Redcliffe-Caboolture Acute Care

Contains the NSW Police email referral (Officer 'Brendan'), the QLD Health clinical assessment (calm, polite, insight intact, no risk, declined service), and the 27 June 2025 "smoking gun" email admitting the true motive.

↓ View / download PDF
GIPA Decision — REV-2025-0858528

Internal Review — No Triple Zero Record

8 August 2025 · Ian Steptoe, InfoLink

Confirms NSW Police holds no information relating to a Triple Zero call. COPS CAD search for all Sydney City welfare messages 25–26 June 2025: none relating to Smith. States it would be "very unusual" for NSW Police to contact a QLD agency rather than QLD Police.

↓ View / download PDF
Internal Review Finding

Record Destruction — File: 3 858525

NSW Police Internal Review Notice of Decision

"Constable Dellenty advised that upon finalisation of the local court matter some information she had received that was not saved on ViewIMS had been deleted." Court case dismissed 10 June 2025. Potential breach of State Records Act 1998.

↓ View / download PDF
Public Source

Beat Saber Livestream — December 2021

Publicly broadcast from Potts Point Central Hotel · @pottspointcentralhotel

@kandykingX's own public gaming livestream — the source of the four images that formed Prosecution 2's recording charges. The images were screenshots taken from this public broadcast, not covert home recordings as sworn.

↓ Live broadcast record (PDF)↓ Police brief extract (PDF)
Communication Record

Professional Standards — Communication Ban

Inspector Martha Winch · 9 December 2024

"My communication with you will be ending" and "You will not be provided any information regarding [subject] at any time." Imposed while a prosecution was active and complaints were pending.

↓ View / download PDF
Formal Government Correspondence

Letter to QLD Premier David Crisafulli MP

9 March 2026 · [email protected]

Formal request for state-level intervention: CCC investigation, state complaint to NSW/LECC, legislative reform to prevent interstate welfare protocol misuse. Enclosures include RTI release JIAU25/13749 and GIPA decision 0834658.

↓ View / download PDF
RTI Release — SMITH Anthony JIA/U25_13749

QLD Health CIMHA Clinical Record

C1238088 · 27 June 2025 · RCACT

Contains the complete QLD Health welfare check file including NSW Police referral, clinical assessment (no risk identified, case closed), and Officer 'Brendan's' 27 June 2025 email admitting the real motive for the interstate check.

↓ View / download PDF
Ministerial Correspondence

Letter to Minister Catley — 23 January 2026

"Evidence of False Information Provided to Executive Government"

My formal correspondence to NSW Minister for Police. Sets out documentary evidence drawn from NSW Police's own GIPA releases of three materially false statements made to executive government.

↓ View / download PDF
Police Response

NSW Police Response F/2026/10870

19 February 2026 · Manager, Ministerial & Executive Services

Sent under the signature of "Manager, Ministerial and Executive Services" on the Minister's behalf. Addresses none of the documentary evidence in the 23 January correspondence. Repeats the same claims that had been disproven.

↓ View / download PDF
Witness Statement

Brenton J. — Confirmation of Impersonation

25 December 2024 · Email reply

Email from the person whose name and identity were used by @kandykingX to operate the bjow_ett bait account: "I've never seen or heard of Issac Rushton." Also confirms the @beat_slaya connection and that @rentersaustralia (Rushton's business) targeted his family's Instagram account. Establishes bjow_ett as an impersonation.

↓ View / download PDF
Privacy Review

MF/2025/2287 — Refusal to Correct False Hang-Up Entry

NSW Police Privacy Internal Review

NSW Police Privacy Internal Review refusing to correct a COPS entry recording that I "picked up and hung up" on a cancelled phone number. NSW Police characterised the false entry as a "historical snapshot" that must be preserved.

↓ Decision letter (PDF)The ~190 pages of annexures behind this decision contain third-party personal information and are held off-site — available to oversight bodies and journalists on request.
LECC Exhibit

OIC and Prosecutor Misconduct Exhibit — H81615839

LECC CASE20237645/RT · April 2026

Standalone exhibit lodged with the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission documenting eleven grounds of OIC and prosecutor misconduct in the third prosecution. Each ground is sourced to official documents already in NSW Police's possession.

↓ View / download PDF
LECC Exhibit

Retaliatory Welfare Check Exhibit — June 2025

LECC · Retaliatory Welfare Check Exhibit

Standalone exhibit lodged with the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission documenting six false statements in the QLD Health welfare referral, the admitted retaliatory motive, and the GIPA "hall of mirrors" by which NSW Police denied the referral existed despite QLD Health producing it.

↓ View / download PDF
NSW Police Internal Review

Superintendent Dunstan Outcome Letter

EXT2025-6654 · 11 November 2025 · Sydney City PAC

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. This letter is the source document cited by the LECC (CASE202512717) when closing the matter on 2 December 2025.

↓ View / download PDF
Command Correspondence

Walters s.132 Closure Letter

EXT2025-7535 · 19 December 2025 · Kings Cross PAC

Letter from Superintendent Jill Walters, Commander Kings Cross Police Area Command — the post-El-Badawi Commander — formally invoking section 132 of the Police Act 1990 (NSW) to decline further investigation. Walters confirms the basis as PC Sen Cst De Angeli's analysis that the documented use of my name as an alias did not, in the agency's view, constitute an offence under sections 192I, 192J or 192K of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). "As a result, I have declined to pursue further investigation into this matter, as permitted under Section 132 of the Police Act."

↓ View / download PDF
Defence Solicitor Record

Solicitor's Reporting Letter — Charges & Outcome

Woolf Associates · ref 6501/22 · 16 August 2022

Reporting letter from my solicitor confirming the first prosecution as heard before Magistrate Reiss at Downing Centre on 15 August 2022. Seven counts in total: four of recording an intimate image (s.91P) and one of contravening an AVO (s.14), all dismissed — not guilty; and two of distributing an intimate image (s.91Q), on which I was convicted and fined $500 on each. A two-year ADVO followed by operation of law. Primary source for the Prosecutions record.

↓ View / download PDF
NSW Police Internal Review

Sydney City PAC — Complaint Declined (No Misconduct)

EXT2023-1827 · 2 June 2023 · Supt Fileman

Outcome letter declining my complaint that the subject officers failed to investigate, finding "no misconduct or maladministration" and declining the matter under s.132(b) of the Police Act 1990. A follow-up letter of 16 November 2023 under the same reference recorded my further material as "additional information only".

↓ 2 Jun 2023↓ 16 Nov 2023
Record-Handling Failure

Outcome Letter Sent Under the Wrong Name

EXT2023-1685 · 2 June 2023 · Sydney City PAC

An outcome letter bearing a different complainant's name and that person's separate reference, yet sent to my email and my address and opening "Dear Mr Smith". It concerned an unrelated complaint about an officer's telephone manner. Included as evidence of careless handling of complaint records — not for its content. The third party's name is withheld here to protect an unrelated person.

Not published as a file (third-party name). Original, with the name redacted, available on request.
Command Correspondence

Kings Cross PAC — "No Further Correspondence"

D/2025/201535 · 21 February 2025 · A/Supt El-Badawi

Letter from Acting Superintendent David El-Badawi advising that the Command "will not be addressing any further correspondence from you on this matter," directing me to call Triple Zero in an emergency. A second restriction on my contact with the Command, following the December 2024 communication ban.

↓ View / download PDF
Promised Contact — No Reply

Kings Cross PAC — Inspector Whalley to Make Contact

30 October 2025 · Supt Jill Walters

Confirms my 29 October 2025 correspondence was directed to the Professional Standards Duty Officer, Inspector Chris Whalley, who "will be in contact with you to discuss your concerns in further detail." No contact was made. See Promised Contact, No Reply.

↓ View / download PDF
Promised Contact — No Reply

Customer Assistance Unit — "Within 21 Days"

CAS-2183884-M3H4 · 27 December 2024

Acknowledgement forwarding my complaint to Central Metropolitan Region, stating I "should be contacted by an officer from the above command within 21 days." No officer made contact.

↓ View / download PDF
Promised Contact — No Reply

Customer Assistance Unit — Misconduct Complaint Acknowledged

CAS-2356895-X3W5 · 3 November 2025

Acknowledgement of my formal complaint of investigative misconduct and malicious prosecution, forwarded to the Central Metropolitan Region Professional Standards Manager, with the assurance that someone "will contact you within a reasonable time, ordinarily within 21 days." A reply was sent but did not address the details of the complaint.

↓ View / download PDF
Promised Contact — No Reply

Victims Services — Charter of Victims Rights

Commissioner of Victims Rights · 9 March 2026

Acknowledgement of my complaint under the Charter of Victims Rights, setting out the Commissioner's enquiry powers. I heard nothing further.

↓ View / download PDF
Oversight Decision

Inspector of the LECC — Complaint Closed

C82-2526/A8579640 · 19 May 2026

Decision of the Inspector of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission on my 5 May 2026 complaint about the LECC's own handling of six of my cases. The Inspector found no agency maladministration and no officer misconduct by the LECC, and closed the file.

↓ View / download PDF
Court Transcript

Bail Application Transcript — 21 June 2022

Downing Centre · Magistrate R Williams · Matter 2022/00179582

Full transcript of the bail application hearing before Magistrate Williams on 21 June 2022, following the fresh charge (second prosecution). 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 PDF
Evidence Bundle

Dunstan Response — Evidence Bundle

EXT2025-6654 · November 2025

My 14 November 2025 response to Superintendent Dunstan's outcome letter, seeking clarification on which officer and which charge the internal review had assessed. Includes correspondence, GIPA extracts, and supporting documentation demonstrating the mismatch between the letter's findings and the documented record. 122 pages.

↓ View / download PDF
@kandykingX — In His Own Court Record

@kandykingX Continues to Operate

@kandykingX has a Queensland Magistrates Court record between 2011 and 2019 — five charges across four court appearances, all in Brisbane Magistrates Court. The certified copies of orders are below in the order in which they were made.

By December 2021 he was operating from Potts Point Central Hotel in New South Wales. The @kandykingX Telegram drug operation has run continuously from the Kings Cross / Potts Point area since 2020.

As of 6 May 2026, six matters were listed against him in Newcastle Local Court (NSW) — four criminal proceedings and two Apprehended Violence Applications. The complainants in those matters are not named here. The criminal listings are publicly searchable on the NSW Local Court daily list under case references 2025/00422604, 2026/00070993, 2026/00072808 and 2026/00123172. The two Apprehended Violence Applications were brought by NSW Police officers — one by a Detective Senior Constable, one by a Senior Constable.

No charges have been laid against him by Kings Cross Police Area Command.

@kandykingX has operated continuously from Kings Cross since 2020. The certified Queensland Magistrates Court record above documents what was available to NSW Police on a single criminal-history check: drug possession, possession of drug utensils, contravention of a Domestic Violence Order, and drug-driving — across four hearings in another state. Kings Cross PAC declined to investigate @kandykingX in their own jurisdiction, while prosecuting me — his victim — three times across the same period.

The current Newcastle Local Court matters were laid by NSW Police officers outside the Kings Cross PAC catchment. He had to leave Kings Cross to be charged in NSW. His Kings Cross Telegram operation continues to advertise drug sales as at the date of publication.

Source: Certified copies of orders, Brisbane Magistrates Court — case files MAG-00118931/11, MAG-00059357/15, MAG-00066324/15, MAG-00005522/19. NSW Local Court daily list, Newcastle Local Court, 6 May 2026 (publicly searchable). @kandykingX Telegram account ("Kandy"), 84 Darlinghurst Rd, Potts Point NSW 2011 — observable on Telegram.

Contact

Get in Touch

If you have experienced similar conduct by NSW Police or Kings Cross PAC, have information relevant to this case, or are a journalist or researcher covering police accountability — please reach out. If you have had contact with the individual operating as @kandykingX, @beat_slaya, @The_real_Tony_smith, or @Au_BigFella on Telegram, I would particularly like to hear from you.

Email
[email protected]
Website
kandykingxcase.com

NSW Police misconduct can also be reported to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) at lecc.nsw.gov.au or the NSW Ombudsman at ombo.nsw.gov.au. RTI requests to QLD Health can be made at health.qld.gov.au.

Legal Disclaimer: All content reflects my personal experience and alleged conduct by named parties and institutions. Claims are grounded in documentary evidence, direct experience, and records obtained under GIPA (NSW) and RTI (QLD). Where matters are characterised as alleged, this reflects legal caution — not uncertainty about the underlying documented facts. Phone numbers, residential addresses, and the complainant's legal name have been redacted from this publication. The complainant is referred to by his social media aliases only. This site is operated in the public interest. Nothing herein constitutes legal advice.