EXCLUSIVE Bombshell twist as police charge the estranged husband of Mark Latham's porn star ex
Ross Matthews was due to appear in Sydney 's Downing Centre Local Court on Wednesday to face a charge of 'using a carriage service to menace/harass/offend'.
The charge is believed to relate to Latham's porn star ex, Nathalie Matthews. Further details are expected to be revealed in court later today.
Ms Matthews has also applied to the court for an apprehended violence (AVO) restraining order to be taken out for her protection against him.
The legal twist comes just a week after Matthews insisted he no longer had anything to do with his former wife since their split three years ago.
Matthews spoke out after Ms Matthews accused Latham of 'a sustained pattern' of psychological, financial and emotional abuse during their relationship.
'Please stop messaging me,' Ross Matthews posted on X after the scandal erupted. 'I don't speak to Nathalie and do not care. Thank you.'
The Matthews married in 2018 but the marriage reportedly ended in 2022, before Ms Matthews began dating former federal Labor Party leader, Latham.
Ms Matthews now also has a separate AVO application in court against Latham.
She claimed Latham proposed to her during their affair - but he has dismissed the relationship as just a 'situationship', despite explicit texts to her also now emerging.
'The big news is I had a private life. I had a sex life and I've got to say it was fantastic,' he said on Wednesday.
UK-born Mr Matthews had previously posted proudly about his marriage to his former wife on social media.
'Six months since I woke up with a killer hangover and still managed to make the best decision I have ever made!' he wrote in the wake of their wedding.
In another post he added: 'Happy one year! I cannot believe how fast a year can go!
'I would be lying if I said it's been the best year of my life - in fact it's easily been the worst but it is in bad times that picking the right life partner is of the most importance!
'I just could not imagine doing life without you, love you always and here's to many years to come!'
It's understood the pair, who were living in Cronulla in Sydney's south, were both Liberal Party members, and Ms Matthews stood as a candidate at the 2021 Sutherland Shire Council election.
On Wednesday, Latham alleged the couple were still actually married while he was seeing Ms Matthews.
'Now The Australian is 'reporting' that I proposed to Nathalie Matthews in May last year,' he posted to X.
'They missed the joke: she was still married to Ross Matthews, and maybe still is to this day.'
The former Labor leader has categorically denied he 'abuses women' and insisted all his dealings with Ms Matthews were entirely consensual.
In an interview with Chris Smith on 2SM, he did not deny sending lurid texts to Ms Matthews from the floor of state parliament.
But he added: 'If I'm the only person in Australia who in a work environment engaged in a bit of playful sex talk with their partner, then I'll buy everyone a lottery ticket tomorrow.'
He said the AVO case against him was being brought privately after NSW Police chose to not pursue the allegations.
'There is a court case pending because she's lodged a private AVO application,' he said.
'She tried to get an AVO with the police... I think that tells you a lot about the substance of the matter.
'But I can say in relation to that, just about all the things she's complaining about, she initiated in consensual arrangements.'
The domestic violence order filed in the NSW Local Court accuses Latham of subjecting his ex-partner to 'a sustained pattern' of psychological, financial, and emotional abuse over almost three years, according to details seen by The Australian.
The application alleges Latham engaged in vile acts, 'including defecating on me before sex and refusing to let me wash, forcing degrading sexual acts, pressuring me to engage in sexual acts with others, demanding I call him 'master', telling me I was his property, and repeatedly telling me that my only value to him was for sex to demean and control me'.
Leaked WhatsApp messages reported by The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday allegedly show interactions between Latham and his former partner.
Latham told Daily Mail Australia the outlet's reproduction of the messages was 'not accurate'. It is also not suggested the claims of abusive behaviour are substantiated, only that the allegations have been made.
The leaked WhatsApp messages include a series of lewd exchanges on February 20, 2025 during parliamentary sitting hours.
'Very hard thinking about you,' he wrote to Ms Matthews shortly after 11am, before following up with a series of suggestive emojis.
'Need badly to taste you,' he wrote that afternoon, alongside an emoji of a tongue.
'Made it back for first vote after dinner,' he said at 8.38pm.
Latham told the outlet the communications did not impact his work.
The tranche of leaked messages includes more explicit exchanges - too graphic to publish - spanning back as far as October last year.
On several occasions, Latham is referred to as 'master'.
He said Ms Matthews sent him images during parliamentary sittings, 'seeking a response', and that he could not describe them due to 'an abundance of caution about the revenge porn laws'.
'I don't think responding to a consensual partner on a private, intimate matter in any way has reduced my workload, which I would match up against any other member in the place,' he told The Daily Telegraph.
Ms Matthews' allegations against the politician were detailed in court documents filed with NSW Local Court.
Latham has denied the allegations which he described as 'comically false and ridiculous' in a post to X on Monday night.
He said he had 'scores of documents' to support his claims and that he would rely on those documents to defend himself.
'As the old saying goes, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,' he wrote.
Ms Matthews, who runs an e-commerce global logistics firm based in Dubai, Perth and Sydney, has applied for an interim order barring Latham from coming within 100 metres of her.
She cited 'ongoing, reasonable fear of harassment, intimidation, and potential harm'.
Her application accuses the former Labor leader of throwing a dinner plate at her, forcing her to call him 'master', and pressuring her to have sex with others.
Ms Matthews' filing, reported by The Australian, also alleges Latham prevented her from cleaning up after defecating on her before sex and telling her she was 'property', and telling her that her only value to him was for sex to 'demean and control' her.
Latham claimed the texting did not impact his work
She also alleged 'physical violence' incidents, including pushing her against walls, forcing her out a door, throwing a plate at her during a row. She also claimed he drove at her with his car, hit her with the side mirror and caused a bruise.
Latham is further accused of 'systematically undermining' Ms Matthews to 'control and isolate' her by comparing her 'unfavourably to other women and acting as if he would 'harm himself' to manipulate her.
Ms Matthews accuses Latham of forcing her to cover the cost of holidays abroad 'under duress', making her purchase expensive goods, and coercing her regarding her father's will for his benefit.
She claims she experienced 'constant fear and hyper-vigilance' since her arrival home from a June trip abroad, alleging all past break-ups with Latham featured a repeated 'pattern of harassment and intimidation'.
She alleges: 'The defendant has held intimate photos and videos of me, and I have been afraid he would expose them to shame and control me if I attempted to leave or resist his demands.'
Latham denied all accusations to The Australian.
'Nothing has been served on me nor has anyone contacted me,' he told the newspaper.
'I haven't had anything to do with her (Ms Matthews) since 27 May, so nearly seven weeks ago. I ended the 'situationship' that night for very good reason.'
The matter will be heard at Downing Centre Local Court on July 30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
Judge disqualifies three Butler Snow attorneys from case over AI citations
July 24 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Alabama disqualified three lawyers from U.S. law firm Butler Snow from a case after they inadvertently included made-up citations generated by artificial intelligence in court filings. U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco in a Wednesday order, opens new tab reprimanded the lawyers at the Mississippi-founded firm for making false statements in court and referred the issue to the Alabama State Bar, which handles attorney disciplinary matters. Manasco did not impose monetary sanctions, as some judges have done in other cases across the country involving AI use. Fabricating legal authority "demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse," Manasco said. "As a practical matter, time is telling us – quickly and loudly – that those sanctions are insufficient deterrents." The case is the latest example of a judge sanctioning or admonishing lawyers as AI-generated "hallucinations" have continued to crop up in court filings ever since ChatGPT and other generative AI programs became widely available. Professional rules require lawyers to vet their work however it is produced. The three Butler Snow lawyers were part of a team defending former Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Jeff Dunn in an inmate's lawsuit alleging he was repeatedly attacked in prison. Dunn has denied wrongdoing. The judge said the three lawyers' conduct was "tantamount to bad faith." She sanctioned partner Matthew Reeves, who admitted to using AI to generate the citations and including them in the filings without verification. Reeves in a May filing apologized to the court and said he regretted his "lapse in diligence and judgment." She also disqualified partners William Cranford and William Lunsford, who each signed their names onto the filings. The lawyers said in May filings that they did not independently review the legal citations that were added. Reeves, Cranford and Lunsford did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. The judge declined to sanction Butler Snow, finding the firm "acted reasonably in its efforts to prevent this misconduct and doubled down on its precautionary and responsive measures when its nightmare scenario unfolded." The firm previously warned its attorneys about the risks of AI and escalated the issue after the court issued an order for the lawyers to explain what happened in the case. Butler Snow also mounted an internal investigation and retained another firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for an independent review to verify citations in 40 other cases, the judge said. A Butler Snow spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did one of the lawyers representing plaintiff Frankie Johnson, or a lawyer from the Alabama attorney general's office, which had appointed Lunsford to litigate on behalf of the state, according to the order. The judge ordered the three lawyers to share a copy of the order with their clients, opposing lawyers and judges in other pending state or federal cases in which they are involved, and also to every lawyer at Butler Snow.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Australians lost $1bn through collapsed investment funds. What happened and how can workers keep their super safe?
Thousands of Australians recently lost more than $1bn in retirement savings after the collapse of funds linked to their superannuation platforms, sparking warnings from the corporate regulator about risky investment schemes. While only a small share of the population has been affected, some investors have seen their entire super balances wiped. Here is how the collapses happened, and what Australian workers can do to avoid a similar situation. Over the past year or so, more than 12,000 Australians have been exposed to three major collapsed or frozen investment schemes: First Guardian, Shield Master Fund and Australian Fiduciaries. The failures have so far led to collective losses of up to $1.2bn. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) blocked investment in Shield in February 2024 and froze the assets of First Guardian in February 2025 after its managers blocked most investors from accessing their funds in May the previous year. The corporate regulator is also investigating concerns about Australian Fiduciaries including alleged inadequate management of conflicts of interest. First Guardian, which held $505m for about 6,000 investors, described its investments as focused on shares, property, private equity and fixed income, according to federal court-appointed liquidators. The liquidators found the company had put nearly $70m into businesses connected to its directors while more than $240m was invested offshore. One director also allegedly bought a Lamborghini with nearly $550,000 of company money. Investors have been warned they will probably only get a portion of an outstanding $446m back, and not until 2027 at the earliest, after liquidators said they expected to conclude directors breached their duties, the value of investments may have been overstated and funds may not have been properly recorded. The fund's May 2024 balance sheet indicated it had grown that to $525m but more than half of that was in question and investors were not likely to recover their entire investment, receivers for Shield reported in November 2024. They found managers had overstated the value of investments in a real estate fund and nearly $7m had been spent on a former director's personal expenses. Some investments would not be recovered for more than two years, the receivers said in December. In these cases, investors switched to superannuation products that would let them invest in First Guardian or in Shield with financial advisers' help, after being cold-called by salespeople, Asic says. The corporate regulator has put the spotlight on salespeople pressuring customers to invest in specific products. Red flags for consumers include cold calling and high-pressure sales tactics, or offers of prizes, free superannuation health checks, or free consolidation of lost super, according to Asic's deputy chair, Sarah Court. 'These calls don't have the hallmarks of a typical scam. The caller will seemingly have your best interests at heart, and they say they want to help you find a better super product or locate lost super for free,' she says. 'If you are unsure or are feeling pressured, just hang up.' Customers and financial advisers reached the products through superannuation platforms, including one operated by an arm of Macquarie Group, that temporarily chose to offer one or both products, Asic says. Super funds are highly regulated and they are discouraged from investing in schemes that are risky or opaque, according to Xavier O'Halloran, the chief executive of advocacy group Super Consumers Australia. Nearly 15 million among the 18 million accounts in Australia are in MySuper products, default super funds that employers offer workers, which did not invest in the collapsed schemes, he says. While all investment carries risk, MySuper products are diversified, and so not reliant on a single investment or asset class. Some Australians invest in less scrutinised schemes, especially through self-managed super funds. Asic recently warned it had growing concerns that peoplewere being encouraged by salespeople and cold-callers to switch from safe investments into complex and risky schemes. Phil Anderson, the general manager of policy, advocacy and standards at the Financial Advice Association Australia, encourages people to research their investments and check details with their financial advisers if they're worried they might be in an inappropriate investment. 'It is quite evident that there's failings in the system,' Anderson says. 'Don't be rushed into doing something. Challenge the adviser: Why is this the right thing for me? … What track record do these investment options have?' Investors can also spread their superannuation between different investment options within or across funds to limit the chance of a single collapse knocking out their entire savings, Anderson says. Customers can check what assets their super is invested in and how it is performing when superannuation funds release their annual statements for 2024-25 in coming months. People who have been told to swap from a MySuper product can also ask their adviser if their prospective fund has been checked by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Asic has encouraged those who have lost money in a collapse to make a complaint about their adviser to the sector's independent ombudsman, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If a customer has lost money but their advice firm has gone into liquidation or insolvency, they may be able to appeal to the sector's compensation scheme of last resort. However, not all of the losses may be recompensed. Last resort compensation payouts are capped at $150,000 per individual and would only cover any clients who accessed the products under the guidance of an adviser, meaning any customer who made the decision without advice would not be eligible. The compensator is expecting claims against advisers linked to the funds but has received no claims for Shield and only one for First Guardian, according to the scheme's chief executive, David Berry. That has made it impossible to determine how many investors will be eligible, how much they might be paid or when they might be compensated, he said. This shortfall has led to calls for increased regulation of the products responsible for the losses, known as managed investment schemes, but also for reform of the compensation scheme of last resort so it covers those who invested without advice. Guardian Australia attempted to reach representatives of the funds Shield, First Guardian and Australian Fiduciaries, including through the firms' liquidators or administrators where applicable. Financial advice firm Interprac and superannuation platform trustees Macquarie, Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth each declined to comment.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Two-year-old sexually abused at family daycare by man living at the premises, mother claims
A mother has claimed her two-year-old daughter was sexually abused at a family daycare service by a man she did not know was living there. The alleged offender was the partner of the woman running the service, located at a private home in New South Wales. Police, the Department of Education and the Department of Communities and Justice investigated, but the woman told Guardian Australia that, without physical evidence, no charges were able to be laid and no action was taken against the man or the service, which is still operating. Jennifer* said her daughter Ava* was two years old and attending a family daycare centre – a service run by an individual in their home, but which still receives the federal childcare subsidy – when she started talking about interactions with a man she didn't know. Some were innocuous, others rang alarm bells. 'It was sort of like, 'Who is [this person]?' It was just a bit off, it was just strange,' said Jennifer, who says she had no idea there was a man living at the home where the service operated. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Jennifer called the woman running the centre to ask her about it. 'I, in good faith, rang [her] the next day, thinking that there would actually be an explanation for it all.' But Jennifer said the response from the woman about the man – who was the woman's partner – was defensive and angry, something that raised 'red flags' for Jennifer, so she un-enrolled Ava. In the months that followed, Jennifer said Ava's behaviour changed. 'She regressed in toilet training, she'd just become sort of more anxious than she'd ever been and getting scared all the time, like really bizarre stuff like screaming … which she'd never been before.' By this point nearly three years old, Ava then disclosed that the man had exposed himself to her and he had touched her private parts, Jennifer said. Ava's disclosures came after seeing something that reminded her of the family daycare. She told her parents that some of the incidents occurred when she was in the daycare's sleep room. Jennifer reported the alleged incidents to police, who investigated, taking a statement from Ava and from her parents. Ava had to undergo a medical assessment by a specialist doctor who deals with potential child victims of sexual abuse but there was no physical evidence of assault. The man was not charged with any offences against Ava. Jennifer said that before reporting to police, she consulted with friends in the police force, who told her that a conviction or even a charge against the man was very unlikely. 'Basically, this has been everyone's advice the whole time: you won't get a conviction unless she's got an STD, or there's semen, or physical evidence. You won't get a conviction. But if there's a record of investigation, it might help someone in 20 years' time, basically. That's what it was for … in 20 years' time, when people start reporting things … there's something on record.' Jennifer praised the police and the Department of Communities and Justice, which served as a liaison with the family and organised support, including counselling, for them, but said the process was still incredibly distressing for Ava. 'She knew what was going on. She's a pretty smart chicken. Even though she was so young, she sort of knew … she remained upset and anxious for quite some time.' An assessment of Ava's behaviour, from a new daycare service that Jennifer eventually enrolled Ava in, seen by Guardian Australia, said Ava 'shows signs of anxiety' and an 'ongoing difficulty to separate from parents' as well as 'distress around sleeping'. The education department also conducted an investigation into the childcare service after the reports were made to police but, in a summary of its findings, seen by Guardian Australia, it wrote: 'There was insufficient evidence to substantiate a breach of the National Law and Regulations. Insufficient evidence to determine [the man] posed a risk to children. No further action was taken by the department. The case was closed.' Jennifer says the department of education investigation left her with more questions. Had they looked into whether the man was present at the service when the children were there? Had they looked into whether the woman running the service left some children alone while she was getting the other children to sleep? 'Why can't they tell us these key points?' she says. 'You don't have confidence because they don't give you answers. 'The investigation… absolutely made me even more distrustful.' In response to general questions about its procedures, the NSW Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority said that if a police investigation does not result in charges, the authority still conducts its own investigation and has the power to take strong action. It said it had issued 211 prohibition notices to people working in early childhood education and care in NSW over the last four and a half years and had prosecuted 34 providers, nominated supervisors and individuals since 2021. None of the prosecutions were for incidents involving alleged sexual abuse. Family daycare centres provide care to more than 71,000 Australian children, including around 22,000 in NSW, making up 5.1% of all early childhood education and care services. The service Ava attended is still operating. Guardian Australia has not confirmed whether the man is still living at the premises. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Jennifer said that she was shocked to learn that family daycare centres have no regulatory obligation to inform parents of who lives at the home, although every member of a household where a family daycare operates must have a working with children check. She says she had no idea that the woman running the service had a partner living in the home. 'It wasn't until Ava came home and started talking about [him], and we're like, 'Who is [this person]?'' Jennifer would like to see this change, to make it mandatory for all family daycare centres to inform parents of who lives at or will be present while their children are in care. She would like to see reform to the way investigations into those working with children – or in close proximity to them – happen, so action can be taken against people who have had credible allegations made against them, even if the level of proof does not reach that required for a criminal conviction. 'That's a hard one because, you know, you don't want innocent people to be punished,' she said. '[But] the level of evidence required for a conviction in court is so high; for beyond reasonable doubt. And when you've got no physical evidence and you've got the words of the two-year-olds, it's not going to stand up in court.' But she says the Department of Communities and Justice, when it met with the family, had a more 'child-centred' focus in talking about the case. 'They came to the house and sat down with us and went through everything and they were amazing and they explained how even though there's no evidence doesn't mean that it didn't occur. It was just more of an open finding. 'They were more believing. And so I feel like there needs to be more of a child-centred approach … rather than a criminal approach. 'I feel like whatever the DCJ were doing felt more holistic without outright coming out and saying like, yes, he's guilty.' Jennifer suggested there could be a threshold of proof, lower than the criminal threshold, that allowed regulators to take actions or impose prohibitions, when there were credible allegations. 'So maybe, I don't know, [this man] shouldn't be in the house when she's operating her family daycare,' she suggests. The incident happened a number of years ago and Jennifer says Ava is, for the most part, doing well. She has friends, thrives at sport and in school, but 'she has her moments, she'll melt down and sometimes we're like: is that part of it? Sometimes you wonder what part of the trauma carries through.' Jennifer and her partner debate what to tell Ava about it when she is older. 'That's a real struggle for us, how do we handle this in the future? Do you want to know this when you're older? Do we have a duty to tell her? It's a quagmire.' 'For my partner and I, we think about it all the time. Occasionally we say to each other, 'God, I was thinking about that today. Like, I can't believe … I've been able to hold it together.'' *Names have been changed to protect privacy In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit In an emergency, call 000. International helplines can be found via
