Submission Before the Presiding Magistrate Prior to Hearing

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

RE: Application for Summons to Witness – Kurt Gavan Slaven and David Kyriacou; Leave Application.

Status Hearing 27th July 2026

FURTHER TO CURRENT DEFENSE SUBMISSION: ABUSE OF PROCESS.

To the Presiding Magistrate,

Your Honor,

This submission is made in support of the defense’s application to issue a Summons to Witness for the protected persons in this matter, Kurt Gavan Slaven and David Kyriacou. The defense submits that compelling these witnesses is not merely a procedural right, but a fundamental necessity to expose a coordinated Abuse of Process that strikes at the integrity of this Court.

The prosecution cannot use the Intervention Order as both a sword and a shield. They cannot leverage the authority of the police force to lay a legally dubious charge regarding a deceased dog, fail to produce the officers, attempting to hide the said protected persons —who are police officers themselves—from cross-examination.

The defense relies on the following grounds to establish the legitimate forensic purpose of this application:

1. Establishing the Genesis of the Prosecution and Collusion:

The defense requires these witnesses to establish the exact genesis of this prosecution. We must determine if ex Officer Slaven or Chief Inspector SAPOL Officer Kyriacou used internal police channels to direct their colleagues to proactively monitor the defendant's social media.

If they directed or colluded with the investigating officers to lay a charge based on a post they never organically saw, it demonstrates a gross misuse of police resources. Exposing this internal mechanism forms the absolute bedrock of our Abuse of Process application.

2. The Actus Reus and the Reliance on Innuendo:

The allegation hinges on a breach via publication. However, the protected persons names have been witnessed as not visual in memory post shares relating to Rossi (R.I.P) and there is evidence that no text was seen scrolling my Facebook feeds as can be testify. Therefore, the prosecution must be rely entirely on innuendo.

The defense has a fundamental right to cross-examine the supposed victims to ask:

Did you even see this post? If so, how did a post about a deceased dog last Christmas before euthanasia cause you to feel harassed or identify yourselves as the subjects?

If the witnesses cannot articulate how the post was "about" them, the *actus reus* of the charge collapses. We cannot test this fatal flaw in the prosecution’s case without them in the witness box.

3. The Evidentiary Void Left by Investigating Officers

The only way this Court can evaluate the severity and legitimacy of this alleged breach is by hearing from the protected persons themselves. If they testify that they were unbothered, unaware, or completely unaffected by a post about a dog, it proves this charge is a frivolous waste of the Court’s time. It would confirm that this prosecution was engineered purely for punitive harassment by their colleagues, rather than the administration of justice.

For the Court to properly determine if its processes are being manipulated for private retribution by serving police officers, the protected persons must be subject to cross-examination. I formally, respectfully request that the application for the Summons to Witness be granted on the 27th of July 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

20th July 2026