Former partner of Mark Latham found guilty of image recording

She was acquitted of a separate charge concerning unauthorized access to restricted data.

Matthews was apprehended at Sydney Airport last year and charged in connection with the event, which occurred while she and Mr. Latham were cohabitating.

The court heard that Matthews utilized Mr. Latham’s computer password to view images another woman had sent him. She then captured these images with her mobile phone and transmitted them to Mr. Latham via text message, alleging infidelity.

Mr. Latham testified that he was unaware the images were on his computer when he provided Matthews with the password to print documents. He recounted receiving a WhatsApp message from Matthews three days later, inquiring, “do you have photos of other women?”

“I didn’t really know what she was talking about so I made a joke of it,” he stated. He responded with photos of his parliamentary colleagues in business suits, adding “busted!!”.

Mr. Latham explained that Matthews subsequently sent images of a woman he had been intimate with, including a nude photograph, and asked, “who is she?” It was then, he said, that he realized the images were stored on his computer.

He clarified that the woman, identified as “A.A,” had sent the photos to his phone and he was unaware they had been synced to his desktop.

The prosecution contended that Matthews accessed restricted data due to the computer’s password protection, arguing Mr. Latham intended the password solely for document printing.

Judge Marguerite Vassall, however, disagreed, noting that Mr. Latham had “freely handed over his password without any further comment to restrict what could or couldn’t be accessed”.

Matthews’s legal counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the images were intimate, as the complainant, A.A., did not testify. He further suggested that even if deemed intimate, Matthews’s actions would be understandable given the “hurt, betrayal and shock” she experienced.

Justice Vassall dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that A.A.’s privacy had been violated and that Matthews “could have confronted Mr. Latham about his infidelity without taking photographs of those images.”

The case is now proceeding to sentencing.