Peter A Clarke

Revenge porn, the use (usually by sharing) of intimate images to harm another (often a former partner) has been chronic problem for some time. It existed in the analog era with the distribution of photos taken with film. It existed through the use of video tape (such as in Giller v Procopets). Its misuse has exploded through the digital photography and videography. The common law and equity was slow to deal with this pernicious practice. Too slow. That said, the Western Australian Supreme Court took strong action in Wilson v Ferguson. The legislature in all states enacted crimes relating revenge porn. While the (stereo)typical perpetrator is a male and often ex partner that is not an element of the offence. The ongoing saga between Mark Latham and his former partner Nathalie Matthews has thrown up another example of alleged revenge porn, this time the accussed is Nathalie Matthews. The Australia reports the story with Mark Latham’s former partner bailed after revenge porn charges. It is reported also by 9 News, the SMH and even the prefer to be serious AFR.

The underlying facts giving rise to the charges are unknown though speculation is rife that it relates to sexual encounters in Mark Latham’s parliamentary office.  He admits the encounters but denies consenting to recordings being made.

Matthews and Latham are locked in a 3 day hearing over the domestic violence application on 20 May 2025.  The prosecution of these charges will proceed independently of that application however the prosecution will no doubt complicate matters for Matthews’ legal team.

The Australian article provides:

She was arrested at Sydney Airport on Sunday morning after arriving on an international flight from Dubai, one of the cities from which she runs her e-commerce business.

Ms Matthews, 38, was taken to Mascot police station on an outstanding warrant where she was charged with accessing or modifying restricted data held in a computer, intentionally recording an intimate image without consent and intentionally distributing an intimate image without consent.

Court documents allege Ms Matthews “did cause an unauthorised access to … intimate photographs, knowing that the access was unauthorised” and “did intentionally record an intimate image of (an unidentified witness), without their consent and knowing (they) did not consent, or was reckless as to whether the person consented” at an address in Mount Hunter on October 8 last year.

She is then said to have distributed the “intimate image” on August 16 this year.

She was held overnight at Surry Hills Correctional Centre and appeared in court via video link wearing a dark jacket and a black T-shirt, speaking only briefly to address the judge and give her date of birth. No plea was taken.

Little detail was given on the substance of the allegations against her, though her lawyer, Daniel Wakim, said the charges were not related to reports of Mr Latham and Ms Matthews recording sexually explicit material within NSW Parliament House.

“This particular matter relates to something separate. So I don’t think that this relates to anything to do with parliament or otherwise,” he said outside court. “Ms Matthews will go through due process and defend herself.”

Ms Matthews will return to court on Wednesday, when she is also scheduled to appear at a mention for her ongoing apprehended domestic violence order case against Mr Latham.

“The charges before the court are serious matters, and these are early days in relation to the investigation,” Local Court magistrate Bruce Williams said. “But looking at them carefully, they would seem to me that they would not form the basis as to a remand in custody.”

Police prosecutors said Ms Matthews should report to police once a week as a part of her bail, but Judge Williams refused the condition. Her passport was seized by police and she is barred from applying for a replacement until the matter is resolved. Her bail was conditional on her not contacting any prosecution witnesses in the case “except through a lawyer”.

Mr Wakim said Ms Matthews had not expected to be met by police, but there was “nothing that she’s hiding”.

“I don’t imagine it would have been as enjoyable as she would have liked but, in any event, it’s remand for a night. We’ve got her bail today, so I’m very thankful,” he said. “(The arrest) was pretty dramatic for the level of the seriousness of this matter, not to suggest these types of offences aren’t serious.

“I haven’t seen any videos. No videos – or photographs, or anything – have been presented at this particular moment.”

Ms Matthews fronted court two days after Mr Latham was escorted by police from Royal Randwick Racecourse at the request of the Australian Turf Club in an unrelated incident.

Despite being barred from the “racecourse premises due to being subject to an investigation”, Mr Latham arrived at Grandview Restaurant at the racecourse on Saturday morning, according to a venue spokesperson.

Mr Latham was allegedly at the venue for “several hours” as he “kept refusing, was not willing to leave”, before management called police to escort him from the premises about 1.45pm, the spokesperson said.

Management was unable to confirm whether Mr Latham was a guest of a member, as the upper house MP claimed, and subsequently asked him to leave.

“This is simply vicious payback for stopping the sale of Rosehill,” Mr Latham said on social media. “The ATC board passed a rule ostensibly aimed (at) me, without telling me, without naming me in an email to club members and supposedly with a restriction period applying to me, without a hearing and, again, without telling me.

“A malicious overreach we will pursue in court.”

Mr Latham and Ms Matthews have been locked in an ongoing ADVO dispute for months stemming from alleged abuse during their relationship, including emotional, psychological and financial manipulation.

Ms Matthews claimed in her ADVO application that Mr Latham drove at her with a car, threw dinner plates at her and forced her into degrading sexual acts.

He has consistently denied the allegations. The matter has been put down for a three-day hearing from May 20 next year.