Six Officers.
One Man.
No Investigation.

On the evening of 9 January 2026, Adam Watson — a self-represented litigant and independent federal candidate for the seat of Kingsford Smith — dialled 000 from his residence in South Coogee, New South Wales. His neighbour, Samira Khalaj, was breaching an Apprehended Violence Order. He needed police to enforce it. What he received instead, he alleges, was a hate crime and a beating.

What followed over the next eleven weeks — the internal complaint, the refusal to investigate, the stonewalling of evidence requests, and the abrupt closure letter signed by an acting superintendent without a single external witness being contacted — is documented in a formal misconduct complaint lodged with the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) on 19 March 2026. Sunlight.Quest has reviewed the full chain of correspondence.

The documents tell a story that is simultaneously specific to Adam Watson and structurally familiar: a man reports police misconduct, police investigate themselves, and the outcome is predetermined before a single piece of evidence is examined.

Watson's initial complaint, sent the following morning on 10 January 2026 and addressed to Paul Simpkins APM (Area Commander, Maroubra Police Area Command), the Minister for Police, the Premier, and several elected representatives, described the sequence in precise terms.

His neighbour Samira Khalaj — the respondent in AVO matter 2025/00395336 — was harassing and intimidating him in breach of the order. Watson called 000 at approximately 7:28pm. The first officer on scene was a supervising Sergeant who, Watson alleges, immediately disputed the existence of the AVO, positioning herself between Watson and the situation rather than enforcing the order.

Watson alleges the situation then escalated sharply. He was moved into a corridor where — with additional officers now present — a group of six officers, including the supervising Sergeant, physically assaulted him. He describes being punched in the ribs and head, smashed into a door, and thrown to the ground. He was left bleeding. He later required treatment at Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick.

The alleged vilification preceded the violence. Watson, who is a white Australian of Jewish faith and a gay man, alleges the supervising Sergeant directed racial, religious, and homophobic abuse at him before the physical assault began. The language used — documented in Watson's LECC complaint — constitutes racial vilification and potentially hate speech under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the Crimes Act 1900.

An independent civilian witness was present and overheard the verbal abuse while passing the scene. That witness's full contact details were later provided to the investigating officer. They were never contacted.

Of all the elements in this matter, the diabetic medication is perhaps the most concrete illustration of institutional indifference — because it has a dollar figure attached to it, and that figure appears nowhere in the police's own closure letter.

Watson is a diabetic. His prescribed medication is not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme — it is a specialist medication requiring a specific script and cannot be obtained at a standard subsidised cost. During or immediately after the alleged assault on 9 January, his medication was taken by the attending officers. It was not returned.

Prince of Wales Hospital was required to source a replacement through an emergency Medicare pathway. Watson raised this matter explicitly in his correspondence with the investigating officer. It was not acknowledged in any response. It is entirely absent from the formal closure letter. No officer was asked why the medication was taken, what became of it, or who bears responsibility for the $878.00 cost.

The internal complaint was assigned to Senior Constable Anthony Agnew of the Eastern Beaches Police Area Command. Over the weeks that followed, Watson's correspondence to Agnew went largely unanswered in substance — responses acknowledged his messages, sought further information, and failed to engage with any of his specific requests.

On 25 January 2026 — before Watson had received substantive responses to most of his outstanding questions — Acting Superintendent Paul Grace issued a closure letter concluding that "no evidence was identified to substantiate the allegations raised." The matter was declared finalised.

Watson's LECC complaint documents, with methodical precision, what was not done before that conclusion was reached:

• Witness not contacted. Watson provided Agnew with the full name and mobile number of the independent eyewitness. Agnew never called him. Watson confirmed this directly with the witness.
• Hospital records not obtained. Watson advised Agnew that Prince of Wales Hospital held medical records and contemporaneous notes — including a video record of his injuries made by the treating doctor. These were never requested.
• Body-worn camera footage withheld. Watson formally requested BWC footage from all six officers multiple times. It was not provided, not addressed, and no explanation was given.
• Officers' identities withheld. Despite repeated formal requests, Agnew refused to provide the names or badge numbers of any of the six officers present on 9 January.
• 000 call record ignored. The recording of Watson's original emergency call was never referenced or obtained.
• Third-party video ignored. Footage of the incident captured by a bystander and showing officers taking Watson to the ground was not requested or considered.
• Medication seizure not investigated. Despite being raised explicitly in correspondence, the seizure of Watson's diabetic medication and the resulting $878.00 cost is completely absent from the closure letter.

A secondary line of inquiry emerged in February 2026, adding a further dimension to the misconduct picture. Watson became concerned that information from his complaint had been disclosed to Mr Nabil — the solicitor representing Samira Khalaj, the AVO respondent — or to persons acting on her behalf.

The question Watson put directly to Agnew, in writing, on multiple occasions was precise: did any NSW Police officer discuss, disclose, or provide any information about complaint Ref: 2025/00395336 — including the involvement or non-involvement of any officers — to Mr Nabil or anyone acting on Khalaj's behalf?

Watson's response, sent the same day, noted that Agnew had answered the wrong question. His concern was not limited to his own personal details but to any information about the complaint — including which officers were or were not involved. He formally placed Agnew and the NSW Police Force on notice of forthcoming Federal Circuit Court proceedings, a misconduct complaint to the LECC, and disclosure of all correspondence to the Minister for Police.

Watson's LECC complaint, lodged on 19 March 2026, requests a suite of outcomes that speak directly to where the internal process failed:

• An independent investigation into the conduct of all six attending officers, conducted entirely outside the Eastern Beaches Police Area Command.
• That all six officers be stood down from active duty pending the outcome of that investigation.
• Disclosure of the names and badge numbers of the six officers present on 9 January 2026.
• Independent review of all body-worn camera footage from the incident.
• A specific investigation into the seizure of his diabetic medication — including why it was taken, what became of it, why it was not returned, and who is responsible for the $878.00 replacement cost.
• A formal finding as to whether the internal complaints process conducted by Agnew and A/Superintendent Grace met the required standard under the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016.

Watson has offered to provide the LECC with: third-party video footage of the assault; medical records from Prince of Wales Hospital; pharmaceutical documentation confirming the medication's PBS status and the $878.00 cost; the independent eyewitness's contact details; the 000 call recording; photographs and video of his injuries; and the complete correspondence chain with Agnew.

What is most striking about this matter is not any single failure but the completeness of the failure. Every standard investigative step — hospital records, body-worn camera, independent witnesses, physical evidence, officer identification — was skipped. Not one external piece of evidence was obtained before the matter was closed.

This outcome — a finding of no wrongdoing reached without examining any evidence — is only coherent if the investigation was never intended to find wrongdoing. The Eastern Beaches Police Area Command investigated its own officers in a matter involving an assault, hate-crime allegations, and the seizure of medical property. The result was predictable.

Watson's complaint to the LECC is not primarily asking the Commission to re-examine the incident of 9 January 2026 — though that is part of it. Its deeper target is the process itself: the internal complaints mechanism that allowed a group of officers to assault a man, take his medication, direct hate-speech at him, and then be cleared by colleagues without any of the available evidence being examined.

Whether the LECC acts meaningfully on that complaint will say a great deal about whether its oversight function is substantive or ceremonial.

Sunlight.Quest will continue to report on this matter as it progresses through the LECC. All source documents underpinning this report are held on file.

References: LECC Complaint EXT2026-0413 (lodged 19 March 2026); NSW Police Force correspondence chain — Inspector Anthony Agnew, Eastern Beaches PAC; A/Superintendent Paul Grace closure letter, 25 January 2026; Initial complaint correspondence, 10 January 2026; AVO matter 2025/00395336 (Watson v Khalaj, NSW Local Court).