Ex-husband of Mark Latham's former partner Nathalie Matthews is accused of harassing the porn star with phone calls and emails for months
Ross Matthews has been charged with using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend Nathalie Matthews with phone calls and emails between 7am on April 1 and 4.30pm on June 2.
The starting date of that alleged conduct coincides with the first listing of a case Ross Matthews brought against his 37-year-old ex-wife in the equity division of the Supreme Court.
That case was last before court on May 21, almost a year to the day since Nathalie Matthews has claimed Latham, a One Nation turned independent NSW MP, proposed to her at Sydney 's acclaimed Otto restaurant.
The one-time Matthews marital home at Sutherland in the city's south is listed as Ross Matthews's address on court papers and was advertised for rent at $840 a week on June 23.
The two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment with views across the city had previously been rented for $640 a week and was last bought for $790,000 in September 2019.
Matthews, who did not appear in person, pleaded not guilty to the harassment charge on Wednesday and was legally represented at Downing Centre Local Court.
Solicitor Alen Sahinovic said his client might be producing independent phone records in his defence and the matter was set for hearing on December 19.
The court heard an apprehended violence order police were seeking against the 34-year-old on behalf of Ms Matthews was associated with the criminal charge.
UK-born Matthews had previously boasted proudly about his marriage.
'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, Matthews 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!'
The fresh allegation against Matthews came a week after he 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 64-year-old Latham of 'a sustained pattern' of psychological, financial and emotional abuse during their relationship.
'Please stop messaging me,' Ross Matthews posted to X on July 16. 'I don't speak to Nathalie and do not care. Thank you.'
A day earlier, The Australian newspaper cited messages between Ms Matthews and a friend which stated Latham had proposed to her on May 18 last year. (That date has been reported by news.com.au as May 23).
Latham responded to that claim by alleging Ms Matthews was still married while he was in what he called a 'situationship' with her.
'Now The Australian is "reporting" that I proposed to Nathalie Matthews in May last year,' he posted on X.
'They missed the joke: she was still married to Ross Matthews, and maybe still is to this day.'
Nathalie May Darrough married Ross David Matthews in 2018 but their union reportedly ended in 2022, before she began going out with Latham.
Ms Matthews has said she was in a relationship with Latham for at least two years before he proposed, meaning they had been together earlier than May 2022.
Daily Mail Australia confirmed Ms Matthews and Latham as a couple in July 2023 after they each posted pictures of themselves to social media in the same row of seats on Court 1 at Wimbledon.
Ms Matthews is privately seeking an AVO against Latham, accusing him of vile conduct 'including defecating on me before sex and refusing to let me wash'.
She further claims he forced her into degrading sexual acts, demanding she call him 'master' and pressuring her to take part in sex with others.
Ms Matthews also alleges physical violence including Latham pushing her against walls, forcing her out a door, throwing a plate at her, and driving at her with a car.
In her AVO application, Ms Matthews states she still holds fears about Latham.
'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,' she wrote.
Daily Mail Australia is also not suggesting any wrongdoing by Latham, only that Ms Matthews has made allegations against him as part of her AVO
This publication revealed on July 18 that Ms Matthews had worked as an OnlyFans porn star for years before she began dating Latham.
Ms Matthews posted hundreds of explicit images of herself on the site under the name Bondi C** S***, as well as videos showing her having sex.
Latham has denied ever mistreating Ms Matthews during what he describes as a 'sexed-up, consensual, open arrangement'.
He has not disputed sending sexually graphic texts to Ms Matthews - but says some messages have been taken out of context - and has not denied having sex with Ms Matthews in Parliament House.
'The big news is I had a private life,' Latham told 2SM's Chris Smith on July 16. 'I had a sex life and I've got to say it was fantastic.'
'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.'
Ms Matthews describes herself as the managing director of Skynet Global Logistics, a company involved in freight forwarding which has a presence in Sydney, Perth and Dubai.
On Thursday, Daily Mail Australia revealed she had converted to Islam in November 2022 and adopted the name Maryam Abdullah.
Ms Matthews' AVO application is listed 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
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Maxwell tells Trump: Free me and I'll tell all to Congress
Ghislaine Maxwell has said she will testify freely to Congress if Donald Trump frees her from jail. Lawyers for Maxwell, 63, agreed that she would appear before the House Oversight Committee, as long as she could see what questions they planned to ask her about her links to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, in advance. She also asked that she receive legal immunity for any future convictions. Her lawyer requested that Maxwell's questioning take place after the Supreme Court rules on her appeal for her 2021 sex trafficking conviction. Alternatively, her lawyer said, she would speak 'freely and openly' to Congress right now if the president grants her clemency. Maxwell was last week subpoenaed to answer questions before Congress about her late boyfriend, for whom she was convicted of sex trafficking underage girls, meaning she would have been forced to appear in the coming months, anyway. 'Our initial reaction was that Ms Maxwell would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and decline to testify at this time,' David Oscar Markus, her lawyer, said in a letter to James Comer, the committee's Republican chairman ,which was shared with The Telegraph. He added: 'After further reflection, we would like to find a way to cooperate with Congress if a fair and safe path forward can be established.' Mr Markus wrote that his client 'cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity'. He said that to 'prepare adequately for any congressional deposition – and to ensure accuracy and fairness – we would require the committee's questions in advance'. His letter continues: 'In the alternative, if Ms Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing – and eager – to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, DC, She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning.' Earlier this week, Mr Markus wrote to the Supreme Court urging it to look at Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking charges, arguing that a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein dating from 2008 prevented her subsequent prosecution. 'Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case. They routinely include promises that extend to others – co-conspirators, family members, potential witnesses,' he wrote to the court. 'If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses.' The case of Epstein, who was found dead in his New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, has continued to reverberate after his death. It has presented a challenge for Mr Trump, who was elected to a second term with a promise to release any outstanding evidence from the case. Many of his supporters believed senior Democrats and other powerful people would be revealed to be at the heart of a child sex trafficking ring. When the Department of Justice announced earlier this month there was no client list and the FBI was recommending there be no further release of material, there was outcry among some. While the president was one of Epstein's many high-profile associates, who also included former president Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, Mr Trump has said he broke off contact with him 20 years ago. When the Wall Street Journal published what it said was a 'bawdy' note from Mr Trump to Epstein for his 50th birthday, he denied having done so and said he was suing the paper and its owner Rupert Murdoch. Last week, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who was previously Mr Trump's private lawyer, interviewed Maxwell for more than nine hours. Amid reports that the daughter of newspaper baron Sir Robert Maxwell, was seeking a pardon, some of Epstein's victims said it would be an act of betrayal to give one. Asked about a potential pardon, Mr Trump told reporters in Scotland over the weekend: 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but I – nobody's approached me with it.'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US appeals court weighs Trump's authority to revoke legal status for thousands of migrants
July 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to rule that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted lawfully when she revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign told a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower-court judge had wrongly concluded Noem lacked the discretion to categorically end the immigration "parole" granted to approximately 430,000 migrants by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, halted the agency's action on April 14, saying Noem could only revoke previously granted parole and work authorizations for migrants on a case-by-case basis. Ensign argued that was wrong, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's May 30 decision to put Talwani's ruling in favor of a class of migrants on hold pending further appeals, which allowed the parole terminations to take effect. "As the Supreme Court has already implicitly recognized by a lopsided vote, the government is likely to prevail on appeal, either in this court or, if necessary, in the Supreme Court," he said. "This court should reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court." The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. Ensign said Noem was legally entitled to categorically end those parole programs, saying she "profoundly disagrees" with the Biden administration's view that they were needed to alleviate pressures at the border and improve the overall immigration system. All three judges on the 1st Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. In May, before the Supreme Court acted, the panel declined to halt Talwani's order, saying Noem had not made a strong showing that her categorical termination of early grants of parole would be upheld on appeal. While liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented in a lengthy opinion, the majority on the nine-member Supreme Court provided no reasoning for why it was staying Talwani's decision. U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta during Tuesday's argument said that placed him and his 1st Circuit colleagues in an "unusual situation" where they are asked to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on how to proceed and were given only the "bottom line." But he told Justin Cox, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing the class action before Talwani, that the justices' order may indicate they "felt that you're at the short end of the stick on the likelihood of success on the merits." Cox said the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order was a reason not to defer to it, saying the 1st Circuit "would be speculating if it sought to assign a particular meaning to it." U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí predicted that even if the 1st Circuit upheld Talwani's decision, the Homeland Security Department could seek to again terminate the migrants' parole status through a new agency action. But Cox said a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would still be "quite valuable" regardless. "At a minimum, it would let our clients and the class members have the dignity of leaving on their own terms, as opposed to being subjected to the kinds of removal and detention processes that are happening right now," he said. The case is Doe v. Noem, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1384. For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the Law Office of Justin B Cox For the United States: Drew Ensign of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants US appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants' status US judge to block Trump from revoking thousands of migrants' legal status
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US appeals court weighs Trump move to end of thousands of migrants' status
July 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to rule that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted lawfully when she revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign told a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower-court judge had wrongly concluded Noem lacked the discretion to categorically end the immigration "parole" granted to approximately 430,000 migrants by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, halted the agency's action on April 14, saying Noem could only revoke previously granted parole and work authorizations for migrants on a case-by-case basis. Ensign argued that was wrong, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's May 30 decision to put Talwani's ruling in favor of a class of migrants on hold pending further appeals, which allowed the parole terminations to take effect. "As the Supreme Court has already implicitly recognized by a lopsided vote, the government is likely to prevail on appeal, either in this court or, if necessary, in the Supreme Court," he said. "This court should reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court." The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. Ensign said Noem was legally entitled to categorically end those parole programs, saying she "profoundly disagrees" with the Biden administration's view that they were needed to alleviate pressures at the border and improve the overall immigration system. All three judges on the 1st Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. In May, before the Supreme Court acted, the panel declined to halt Talwani's order, saying Noem had not made a strong showing that her categorical termination of early grants of parole would be upheld on appeal. While liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented in a lengthy opinion, the majority on the nine-member Supreme Court provided no reasoning for why it was staying Talwani's decision. U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta during Tuesday's argument said that placed him and his 1st Circuit colleagues in an "unusual situation" where they are asked to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on how to proceed and were given only the "bottom line." But he told Justin Cox, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing the class action before Talwani, that the justices' order may indicate they "felt that you're at the short end of the stick on the likelihood of success on the merits." Cox said the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order was a reason not to defer to it, saying the 1st Circuit "would be speculating if it sought to assign a particular meaning to it." U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí predicted that even if the 1st Circuit upheld Talwani's decision, the Homeland Security Department could seek to again terminate the migrants' parole status through a new agency action. But Cox said a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would still be "quite valuable" regardless. "At a minimum, it would let our clients and the class members have the dignity of leaving on their own terms, as opposed to being subjected to the kinds of removal and detention processes that are happening right now," he said. The case is Doe v. Noem, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1384. For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the Law Office of Justin B Cox For the United States: Drew Ensign of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants US appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants' status US judge to block Trump from revoking thousands of migrants' legal status
