Item 9 · Police brief H81615839

Police searched the records. Total Result Count: 0. Ninety-nine days later, they charged me.

On 3 February 2024, NSW Police searched the communication records for the number at the centre of an alleged call. The search returned zero results. That nil-result was placed inside the police’s own brief of evidence — Item 9 — before the charging decision, made 99 days later. This page opens the archive at that single document.

See the record ↓ Open Item 9 ↗ Read the plain-English story

PROSECUTION 3 · H81615839 · WITHDRAWN AND DISMISSED 10 JUNE 2025

Authentic public record crop. The service number is redacted in the source document.

Prosecution 3 · H81615839

The 99 days between the record and the charge

Rushton reported a missed call. Police searched the records and found none for that week. They charged Tony 99 days later.

The alleged call

A witness statement says a missed call appeared on the complainant’s phone at 2:17 am, from a number saved under Anthony’s name. No message was left. It is one of three allegations in this prosecution: the call, messages from an “unknown profile”, and the “legalabuse” account.

SOURCE · RUSHTON STATEMENT, P.2 · BRIEF H81615839

Read the allegation record
The search returns zero

Police run a carrier communication-record search for the number across the week of the alleged call — 1 to 7 September 2023. Total result count: 0. Rushton reported a missed call from a saved mobile number. Police held the zero-result search for 99 days before charging.

Brief Item 9

SOURCE · IASK 12647763 · BRIEF ITEM 9

Open Item 9 ↗
The charge

Ninety-nine days after the empty search, Anthony is charged with using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. The nil-result sits in the same brief as the witness statement that alleges the call.

99 days later

SOURCE · RUSHTON STATEMENT, P.2 (BRIEF ITEM 6) · BRIEF H81615839

Open the witness statement ↗
Withdrawn & dismissed

At hearing, the complainant attended court and left without giving evidence. An adjournment was refused. The charge was withdrawn by police and dismissed by the Court. A costs application was refused.

SOURCE · TRANSCRIPT TR0158862 · WILSON TIGHE LETTER, 16 JUNE 2025

Open the hearing transcript ↗

The allegation and the search

The allegation and the record — in the same brief

The call allegation and zero-result search are in the same police brief.

What was alleged

The facts sheet and witness statement

  • That on 4 September 2023 a call was made at 2:17 am from a number associated with Anthony.
  • That on 17–18 July 2023 messages were sent to the complainant from an “unknown profile”.
  • That Anthony operated the “legalabuse” Instagram account.
What the brief’s own records show

The documents already in the file

  • The carrier search for the week of the alleged call returned zero records — Item 9 in the same brief.
  • Tony identifies the conversation as an account impersonating his friend. He says his friend confirmed the impersonation on 25 December 2024.
  • The follower export’s earliest visible entry is beat_slaya, 26 July 2023. Tony identifies it as the complainant’s alias and his first follower.

The zero-result search and the call allegation are both in the served police brief.

Who is who — one minute

I Reported the Crime. They Charged Me.

I’m Anthony Smith. From 2021 I reported impersonation, device intrusion and harassment linked to accounts using my identity. Police did not charge the person I reported. They prosecuted me three times.

AS

Reporting party · archive author

Anthony Smith

Reported online impersonation, intrusion and harassment to NSW Police from 2021. Was prosecuted three times. Compiled this archive from the records.

@

Person Anthony reported

@kandykingX

The person Anthony reported. Has not been charged by Kings Cross PAC — the command that received the reports and laid the charges against Anthony.

NSW

Investigating and prosecuting agency

NSW Police

Received reports from both sides, made the charging decisions, and produced the records published here — including the nil-result that is this page’s starting document.

Three perspectives

Who knew what

The same events looked different depending on who held which information: what Anthony knew, what police held, and what @kandykingX had alleged.

Anthony Smith knew

    NSW Police knew / held

      @kandykingX knew / alleged

        April 2021 · the origin

        The record beginning on 16 April 2021

        Tony had reported account access and missing photos before these prosecutions. His cameras and account logs record activity on 16 April 2021. The Apple chat records his request for help.

        Strand 1 · cameras

        The security camera log

        Anthony identifies Issac Rushton in this frame, timestamped 14:12:49 on 16 April 2021. He says he was at work, rostered 11:23–19:56, and identifies further bedroom activity from 18:55.

        SOURCE · SECURITY-CAMERA FOOTAGE · HELD BY ANTHONY SMITH

        Strand 2 · account log

        The Google account log

        The account activity records a Gmail search for “Ike” at 17:24 and later Drive searches on 16 April 2021. Anthony connects that activity with the intrusion he reported. He says the Nest camera was switched off at 17:42 and unplugged at 19:12.

        SOURCE · GOOGLE ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LOG · HELD BY ANTHONY SMITH

        Strand 3 · sharing / deletion report

        The deletion trail — 483 items shared

        The native iCloud screen shows “483 items shared,” the range 25 December 2020 to 6 April 2021, and a Stop Sharing control. Anthony’s annotation says the photos were transferred and his copies deleted. The Apple Support chat records his report of deleted photos.

        SOURCE · ICLOUD SCREENSHOT · DISPLAY AND ANNOTATION DISTINGUISHED

        Strand 4 · Apple Support

        The Apple Support transcript

        Tony asked Apple which account received his photos and how his devices had been accessed. Apple arranged a callback. The exchange is below.

        CASE ID 101746478857
        Apple Support chatCase ID 101746478857
        TonyMy account was hacked on April 16 2021.
        TonyMy photos were shared to the hacker then my photos were deleted. Can you say what account was the photos shared to?
        AppleHello Tony! You have reached to the live agent and I hope you are doing good despite the issue at hand.
        AppleIf by any chance this chat disconnects, this is your Case ID: 101746478857.
        AppleSo it seems like you want to know that to what account your photos were shared after it got hacked?
        TonyYes. I’ve had these installed on my devices as well.
        TonyA few times recently the phone app failed and this showed on the screen. I’m concerned that it’s a type of spyware.
        AppleMay I confirm how did you isolate that your account got hacked/compromised? And how did you get these screenshots which you’re saying the things you were using back then?
        TonyOn 16 April it was missing 5 months of photos. And emails and files.
        AppleAnd you’ve reported it just today? I mean have you report this issue before?
        TonyI know who did it he had access to my iPad when I was at work. But I don’t know the email address that he used. He also bricked my phone.
        ApplePlease don’t worry. I can understand your concern, Tony. You did the right thing to contact here. Let me see what best I can do for you to help you in this case.
        AppleMay I know, have you shared your Apple ID details to any unknown party? Or has somebody enabled Two Factor Authentication for your Apple ID without your consent?
        TonyI was hoping on getting the email address that bricked my phone. He must have seen me using the password to open my iPad.
        TonyI got help to unlock the phone. But didn’t go into details. He stalks me and knows what I do.
        TonyNo the phone is now ok. But I wanted to know what email address Apple ID is being used.
        TonyI have a TPG internet account. And I found he had access to that as well. It looks like TPG. And his name is Ike.
        AppleMay I confirm that is it your personal device or it’s an enterprise unit which has been given by any company to their employees?
        TonyPersonal.
        AppleI was scrolling up and saw that you’ve shared an image regarding this name “Ike” which also shows an email [redacted].
        TonyYes. He has no Apple products so I was surprised that he had an Apple ID that he’s used to brick my phone. That Gmail [redacted] — is that an Apple ID?
        TonyYes if possible and when the track toggle was installed and if the phone has any spyware on it as shows in the Unknown Application screenshots.
        AppleIf the Activation Lock on this iPhone is already removed that mean now there’s no information for this Apple ID anywhere on our tools.
        TonyOh. Is there something like an account activity history for the 16 April 2021?
        AppleThere’s no such tool with which I’ll be able to check any activity associated with any Apple ID.
        AppleBut Tony, it seems the case needs to be escalated to my senior phone support advisor for further investigation. If you allow, may I schedule a call back?
        TonyYes please.
        Open or download the complete redacted Apple Support PDF ↗

        The record Anthony reported — and the complaint he made about it — would later become the basis for the first prosecution’s charges. Read the Prosecution 1 record →

        The whole record · 2022–2025

        Three prosecutions and their outcomes

        The court outcomes are set out below.

        Prosecution 1 · H85611724

        Security-camera stills

        4 dismissed · 2 guilty with $500 fines each

        The six image charges were heard with the Prosecution 2 AVO charge at Downing Centre on 15 August 2022. Across both prosecutions, five charges were dismissed and two resulted in $500 fines.

        • 4 × record intimate image without consent — dismissed, not guilty.
        • 1 × AVO contravention (Prosecution 2) — dismissed, not guilty.
        • 2 × distribute intimate image without consent — guilty, $500 fine each.

        Two $500 fines.

        The images were stills from Anthony’s own home-security cameras, showing the person he had reported inside his apartment on 16 April 2021. Before the hearing, a detective reviewing the exhibit recorded:

        “Police could not find any images that would constitute an offence.” — COPS Event E83652754

        Read Prosecution 1 →
        Prosecution 2 · H91613788

        The alleged Signal call

        Dismissed · not guilty

        Alleged: a phone call made on 19 June 2022 in breach of an AVO condition — one charge of contravening a prohibition or restriction in an AVO.

        • The facts sheet asserted the calling number was registered to Anthony. Anthony says the number was not his.
        • No carrier call record, no statement from the person who answered the call, and no originating-device evidence identified him as the caller.
        • Eight days before the hearing, the officer in charge wrote:

        “The call was made through Signal which would not show up on Optus call logs.” — Constable Hammer, 7 August 2022

        At hearing, the Court found no specific voice-identification evidence and that the possibility of another person using the phone had not been excluded. The charge was not proved and was dismissed.

        Read Prosecution 2 →
        Prosecution 3 · H81615839

        The search and the charge

        Withdrawn · dismissed

        Alleged: a call on 4 September 2023, messages from an “unknown profile” in July 2023, and operation of the “legalabuse” account. One charge of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend.

        • The carrier search for the week of the alleged call returned zero records — held 99 days before charging as Item 9 in the same brief.
        • Item 7 — “Documents provided by Victim” — carries an undated verification mark on the contents page, stamped received 27 May 2025. Its pages were absent from the brief served on 29 May 2025.
        • The OIC later advised that information not saved on ViewIMS “had been deleted” (REV-2025-0858525).
        • At hearing the complainant left without giving evidence; the charge was withdrawn by police and dismissed.
        Read Prosecution 3 →

        The first prosecution resulted in two $500 fines for distributing security-camera stills. Four recording charges were dismissed. The second prosecution’s AVO charge also ended not guilty. The third was withdrawn and dismissed.

        Welfare & oversight

        What happened after the prosecutions

        The same-day welfare referral

        On 25 June 2025 Smith complained to a Federal Minister at 3:33 am. That morning a Kings Cross officer contacted Queensland Health about a welfare check. In a later email, the officer referred to Smith having made further complaints to a Federal Minister’s office. Released GIPA records do not record the Triple Zero call the officer cited.

        Read the redacted Queensland Health release

        The oversight record

        The archive brings complaint outcomes and review decisions into one timeline so readers can see which documents were addressed, which were not, and what each body said it could examine.

        Open the Oversight Timeline →

        The questions

        What This Archive Examines

        Tony asks for independent examination of the police decisions and the records behind them.

        Why were repeated impersonation and harassment reports not investigated as cybercrime?
        Why did multiple prosecutions later fail — and why was exculpatory material in each brief before charges were laid?
        Why was the reporting party repeatedly treated as the respondent?
        What triggered a cross-border welfare intervention on the same day as a complaint to a Federal Minister?
        What oversight reviewed these decisions — and why did every tier close without engaging the documentary record?
        What records remain withheld, destroyed, or certified “not held”?

        Continue into the archive

        Six ways in — pick the one that fits

        The homepage gives the shape of the case. Each route opens the same documentary record for a different reader.

        Start with the human storyThe StoryThe plain-English account, chapter by chapter, with the documents beside it. For journalists and oversightThe Press BriefWhat happened, who was involved, what evidence exists, and how to request originals. The oversight ledgerOversight TimelineEvery complaint, every body and every outcome in one chronology. Source-led browsingEvidence LockerThe published documents grouped by evidentiary role and public status. Printable briefingMedia PackThe key facts, timeline, and source references in one printable document. Open letterMedia InvitationAn open invitation to journalists and editors to examine the documented record.

        More in the archive: GIPA tracker

        Key documents

        Item 9 · carrier search · Total Result Count: 0 ↗ Reporting letter · Prosecution 1 outcomes ↗ Apple Support chat · complete redacted PDF ↗ Queensland Health release · redacted ↗ Court outcome · 10 June 2025 ↗ LECC exhibit · H81615839 ↗

        Evidence image

        Carrier search record showing Total Result Count: 0