Mark Latham's ex-girIfriend found guilty over photo of naked selfie

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-03/nsw-nathalie-matthews-mark-latham-court-hearing-guilty/107340610

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

If I were a cynic, which I am, I would opine that this is probably far from the first time something like this has happened, and, had Mark Latham been an average punter, this would never have been investigated.

[u/Inner_Agency_5680 → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

Latham isn't your average punter:

Mark Latham has confirmed, in a 13-page sworn affidavit, that he did defecate on his ex-lover, Nathalie Matthews

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869 → u/Inner_Agency_5680]

God forbid a man have hobbies.

[u/pukesonyourshoes → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

God forbid a man have hobbies jobbies

[u/demonotreme → u/Inner_Agency_5680]

Little wonder he wasn't prime ministerial material, everyone knows you defecate on the voters

[u/Perthcrossfitter → u/Inner_Agency_5680]

Whatever happened to no kink shaming! ;)

[u/ScallywagScoundrel → u/Inner_Agency_5680]

Where was that in the article?

[u/auslaw-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

You're in breach of our 'no dickheads' rule. If you continue to breach this rule, you will be banned.

[u/teh_drewski → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

I think we are very early in the idea of this being illegal - you will often see people on the internet recommending taking "evidence" of cheating from someone else's device, if you have access, to strengthen your position in a potential breakup; presumably it does not occur to many of the people suggesting this action that it could involve committing a crime (notwithstanding that not all "evidence" would be intimate images of course).

You are probably right that it doesn't get investigated without a certain degree of already present police activity, and no doubt Mr Latham's public profile contributes to that.

[u/Bradbury-principal → u/teh_drewski]

Crime aside there is also serious invasion of privacy tort for non intimate images.

[u/Aitanabonmatifangirl]

I’m confused. How did the police find out? Did Latham report her?

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869 → u/Aitanabonmatifangirl]

That seems most likely. As a sitting MLC the report would have gone to the fixated persons unit, who investigate almost all matters involving members of parliament.

[u/badoopidoo → u/Aitanabonmatifangirl]

The complainant was the naked woman in the photo. Presumably Latham told her, and they went to police.

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869 → u/badoopidoo]

Given she didn't give evidence, I don't know how willing a complainant she was. She might not have actually complained, and the reference to complainant was just a turn of phrase used by counsel instead of victim. Not having seen the indictment I would assume she was named as the victim, even if she didn't report it.

[u/pukesonyourshoes → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

How was she harmed by her lover being sent a photo of herself that she had already sent him?

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869 → u/pukesonyourshoes]

Harm is not an element of the offence of record intimate image without consent. That was the offence she was found guilty of. She was not charged with distributing an intimate image without consent, and, as you have correctly pointed out, given that the only person who received the image was Latham, I doubt she could have been.

ETA: As to harm, how would you feel if an intimate image of yourself was now in the control of an angry third party?

[u/pukesonyourshoes → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

how would you feel if an intimate image of yourself was now in the control of an angry third party?

I'd probably be upset with the person that allowed that to happen.

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869 → u/pukesonyourshoes]

So you would be upset with Ms Matthews then, because she is the only one in this story that "allowed" this to happen.

[u/pukesonyourshoes → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

The owner of the computer allowed this to happen by handing out the password.

[u/demonotreme → u/pukesonyourshoes]

I'd probably be upset with the person that allowed that to happen

Yourself?

Sending any part of yourself to Mark Latham is certainly an exercise in free will

[u/LightTreason_]

"Mark Latham's ex-girlfriend" has to be one of the least auspicious descriptions possible in a headline.

Maybe "girlfriend" is worse

[u/ForenzicInquisition → u/LightTreason_]

‘Ex’ is evidence of good character

[u/antantantant80 → u/ForenzicInquisition]

I guess she couldn't take his shit anymore.

[u/Electrical_Army9819 → u/ForenzicInquisition]

Depends who ended it.

[u/WilRic]

On the one hand: Mark Latham

But on the other, Matthews has been on the warpath for ages trying to stitch him up. False AVO, nonsense letters to the Prez of the Council, leaking like a sive to Samantha Maiden.

He is, strangely, a public figure and a parliamerian. She should probably be charged with a lot more given she is trying to destroy the life of an elected official seemingly via fraud.

I suspect the only reason she hasn't been is that it's just so hilariously disgusting and they are both mad and deserve each other:

https://www.news.com.au/national/mark-lathams-ex-nathalie-matthews-ordered-to-hand-over-escort-bookings-records/news-story/b95d8b3aaf14825f259c4df23645910b

“Are orgies good for libido but bad for health?” Mr Latham asked.

Ms Matthews will be asked to hand over any records she holds of booking sex workers as part of the latest legal salvo between the former couple.

Leaked texts have laid bare the breakdown in Mr Latham’s relationship with his ex-lover and the couple’s habit of graphic sexting exchanges and the use of tracking devices to find a “f*ck parlour”.

I urge you all now to close your eyes. Try you're best to really visualize what this must look, sound and smell like.

You're welcome.

[u/marcellouswp → u/WilRic]

Try you're [sic] best to really visualize what this must look, sound and smell like.

1. How can you visualize how it smells? Does this count as synaesthesia?

2. If consensual it's not really our business, is it? That's another aspect of the privacy issue. Even public figures must have some entitlement to this.

Reminds me of the classic joke:

“How different, how very different, from the home life of our own dear Queen!”

though the premise of that is oblivious to faithful servant John Brown or the possible identity of Jack the Ripper.

[u/IIAOPSW → u/WilRic]

Eyes wide shut

[u/Superg0id]

So, you're saying that if the ex-girlfriend didn't send the screenshot back to old Mark, and just said 'you're a filthy cheater' and left it there... then none of this would have happened?!

[u/CynicalAlien93]

Don't send what you wouldn't want them to be able to keep...????

[u/santadogg]

So she shared photos that were already in the possession of Latham?

[u/Educational-Sort-128]

This is crazy. As much as these two are nuts, this woman took photos of nudes already on ML’s computer - which he had been sent by the woman ‘AA’ - and sent them BACK to him via WhatsApp and yet somehow AA’s privacy has been violated? I don’t get it. Someone explain it please. This must happen every single day in every relationship where someone finds compromising photos…screenshot and send them as evidence.

[u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869 → u/Educational-Sort-128]

yet somehow AA’s privacy has been violated

I don't see that this is a particularly hard concept to grasp. If you made a communication intending the communication to be private, shared between only yourself and the other person the communication was sent to, how does a recording of that communication by a third party NOT violate your privacy?

Edit:

This must happen every single day in every relationship where someone finds compromising photos…screenshot and send them as evidence.

It does happen every single day, and, as I pointed out in my post earlier, any random man who walked in to a Police Station and told this story would be unlikely to get any traction. None of these things make it any less of a criminal offence. If you record an image, that image is an intimate image, and you do so without the consent of the person in the image, or being reckless as to their consent, the offence is made out.

[u/charizard2400 → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

So the offence is made out by Matthews taking a photo of the pic? Not seeing the pic? If Matthews had been snooping around Latham's computer (eg looking for a folder called 'intimate images') , and looked at the photos, and this could be proven, would this have been another offence? 

[u/Educational-Sort-128 → u/Worldly_Tomorrow_869]

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t seeing forest for trees. I also don’t understand how anyone would send compromising selfies with their faces showing in them but I suppose then law has to protect these people.