Married At First Sight star Stacey Hampton loses case against the Australian Federal Police over search warrants linked to her X-rated adult content

A former Married At First Sight star has lost her case against the Australian Federal Police over an early morning raid on her home that was linked to her OnlyFans content.

In September 2023, police raided the home of Stacey Lee Hampton, former MAFS contestant and ex-partner of Rebels biker boss Shane Smith, over possible failure to declare income she received from her work on OnlyFans.

Ms Hampton said the search warrant was “invalid” and an “abuse of power” because it did not adequately specify the allegation of misconduct underlying it.

She appeared in the Federal Court in Adelaide on Wednesday and was told she had lost her battle with the AFP and Services Australia and had to pay their legal costs. The Daily Telegraph reported.

Ms. Hampton now faces a huge legal bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

After her court appearance, Hampton wrote on Instagram, “Today was not the outcome I expected but I will always stand up for what is right.”

“Ultimately, I wanted to show the little guy that you have a voice, you have to use it, you have to be proud and believe in yourself.”

‘Unfortunately this is how the system works, but never give up hope, keep your light shining. Fight for what you believe in, the truth.’

‘This was a proud moment for me. I have grown so much over the last 12 months and have come out stronger and wiser.’

In August, the Federal Court heard Ms Hampton may have underreported her true income over an 18-month period and Services Australia was concerned she may have received carer payments in error.

However, Ms Hampton, who appeared in court representing herself in an application for a civil inquest, said the search warrant was “invalid” and amounted to an “abuse of power” because it did not adequately specify the allegation of misconduct underlying it.

“It (the authorization) is too broad,” she said.

‘There are too many types of income.’

She also objected to an interview with a Services Australia employee that took place during the search.

She told the court the interrogation would not have taken place at her home without what she called an invalid warrant.

“They had to do it through search warrants,” she said. “It wasn’t delivered to the door in person.

“They used the search warrant to conduct that interrogation.”

According to Justice Stephen McDonald, the case will depend on whether the orders meet the Supreme Court’s legal standards.

Paul d’Assumpcao, lawyer for the AFP and Services Australia, argued that the terms of the warrant were “well within the bounds acceptable to the courts”.

He disputed Ms. Hampton’s characterization of the allegation in the warrant as insufficient. He argued that the warrant provided more information than required by the Criminal Code.

He also argued that the courts had recognised the need to provide investigative bodies such as the AFP with “sufficient flexibility” in the way they investigate alleged offences.

“There has to be a balance at some point,” he said.

“At what level do we cross the line and say (the information provided in the warrant) is good enough?”

Judge McDonald said a warrant did not have to contain the specifics of an indictment and that the complexity of the case depended on “how to draw the line” between the requirements for a warrant.

Mrs. Hampton has two sons, Kosta and Kruz, with Mr. Smith.

Mr Smith died in a motorcycle accident in Adelaide in September 2022.

Ms. Hampton has not been charged with any crime and there is no allegation that she committed any wrongdoing.

Judge McDonald said he would “reserve” his decision and announce it at a later date.

Speaking to NewsWire earlier this year, Ms Hampton said she would seek damages from the government if she won her case.

“I haven’t been arrested and this hasn’t led to anything,” she said.

“But for me it’s the principle, the fact that they came to my house for no reason, as a licensed attorney, at 6 in the morning, with my two children who had lost their father and traumatized us.”

“What does that mean for my mental health, the health of my children, and also for my work, for the fact that I can work?”