Item 9 · Police brief H81615839
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.
Prosecution 3 · H81615839
One number. Three dates. The gap between them is the anomaly this archive exists to make visible. Every claim links to the document it comes from.
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 recordPolice run a carrier communication-record search for the number across the week of the alleged call — 1 to 7 September 2023. It completes in 25 seconds. Total result count: 0. The exact disconnection date is not stated in the audited records. A zero-result search does not, by itself, exclude every possible method of communication — it is the record police held for 99 days before charging.
Brief Item 9SOURCE · IASK 12647763 · BRIEF ITEM 9
Open Item 9 ↗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 facts sheet that alleges the call.
99 days laterSOURCE · COURT ATTENDANCE NOTICE · FACTS SHEET · BRIEF H81615839
Open the facts sheet ↗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 The charge was withdrawn by police and dismissed by the Court.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 ↗For the skeptical reader
Neither document had to be hunted down. Both were already in the prosecution’s own file before the charge was laid. Read them together.
These documents were in the prosecution’s file before the charge. The archive does not draw the conclusion for you — it asks why the charge proceeded on this record, and lets you decide what weight to give each document.
Who is who — one minute
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.
Reporting party · archive author
Reported online impersonation, intrusion and harassment to NSW Police from 2021. Was prosecuted three times. Compiled this archive from the records.
Person Anthony reported
The person Anthony reported. Has not been charged by Kings Cross PAC — the command that received the reports and laid the charges against Anthony.
Investigating and prosecuting agency
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
The same events looked different depending on who held which information: what Anthony knew, what police held, and what @kandykingX had alleged.
April 2021 · the origin
The 99-day anomaly sits on top of an older contradiction. Before any charges existed, the cameras, account log and deletion trail recorded activity on 16 April 2021. The Apple Support record preserves the account Anthony gave Apple. None was investigated as the crime he reported.
Strand 1 · cameras
While Anthony was on shift — rostered 11:23–19:56 — this clear frame is timestamped 14:12:49 on 16 April 2021 and shows Issac Rushton walking from the hall toward the kitchen. Other camera records show activity from 18:55 in the bedroom.
SOURCE · SECURITY-CAMERA FOOTAGE · HELD BY ANTHONY SMITH
Strand 2 · account log
The account log shows Gmail searched for “Ike” at 17:24, Drive searched for “video” at 17:48, and a folder named “Ike” created and shared at 18:39. The Nest camera was switched off at the power board at 17:42, then unplugged at the wall at 19:12.
SOURCE · GOOGLE ACCOUNT ACTIVITY LOG · HELD BY ANTHONY SMITH
Strand 3 · sharing / deletion report
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 record separately preserves him making that deletion report.
SOURCE · ICLOUD SCREENSHOT · DISPLAY AND ANNOTATION DISTINGUISHED
Strand 4 · Apple Support
The substantive exchange is set out below in readable form. It records Tony’s report, the questions Apple asked, his request for account-activity information and Apple’s decision to escalate the case. Routine closing and privacy wording is omitted; the complete redacted source remains available as a 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
Separate matters, separate allegations, separate outcomes. The archive keeps them apart, and so does this page — including the two findings of guilt.
Seven matters were heard together at Downing Centre Local Court: four recording charges, two distribution charges, and one bail-breach charge.
Two $500 fines — the minimum penalty.
The images were stills from Anthony’s own home-security cameras, showing the person he had reported inside his apartment on 16 April 2021. Eleven weeks 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 →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 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 →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 record is not one-sided. Two findings of guilt stand on Anthony’s record — two distribution charges, minimum penalty, $500 each, over stills from his own security cameras showing the person he had reported inside his home. This archive does not hide them. It asks why the surrounding record was pursued in the form it was — and why the person Anthony reported has not been charged by Kings Cross PAC.
Welfare & oversight
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 releaseThe 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
This archive does not ask you to assume motive. It asks whether the documented decisions warrant independent scrutiny.
Continue into the archive
The homepage gives the shape of the case. Each route opens the same documentary record for a different reader.
More in the archive: GIPA tracker