An NRLW star was allegedly prompted to accuse her former girlfriend of assault after recently being convicted of domestic violence offences against the same woman.

Maddie Studdon went to police on February 19, alleging that real estate agent Bree Brown had punched, slapped and bitten her during several attacks between November 2023 and August last year.

The complaint came just 15 days after Studdon narrowly avoided prison over a series of domestic violence incidents that a judge said would have left Brown ‘terrified’.

Studdon, who last played for the Dragons in 2025 and has represented both Australia and NSW, was arrested on January 13 after a disturbance outside Brown’s home.

She pleaded guilty to stalking or intimidating Brown with the intention of causing physical harm, as well as using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend her.

Brown appeared in court the day after Studdon made the domestic violence allegations. Police initially refused her bail, but it was later granted.

Five days later, the 31-year-old pleaded not guilty to two counts of common assault, three counts of assault causing actual bodily harm and one count of destroying or damaging property.

Police have since added three alternative common assault charges, to which Brown also pleaded not guilty at Downing Centre Local Court on Thursday.

Brown attended court with her parents, a young brunette woman who sat beside her and sometimes held her hand, and three other supporters in the public gallery.

She has no criminal convictions, has never previously been charged with an offence and had never appeared in court before the current charges were laid.

Studdon, who turns 32 on Friday, was due to give evidence via audio-visual link from another part of the court. However, the judge ran out of time to hear from her on Thursday.

Solicitor Melissa Huseyin tendered documents detailing Studdon’s domestic violence convictions and an apprehended violence order imposed to protect Brown.

She argued that the material showed a possible motive for Studdon’s allegations against her client, adding that the background was not included in the prosecution brief prepared against Brown.

Ms Huseyin asked Constable Bailey Smith, the officer in charge of the case, whether Brown had disclosed Studdon’s convictions and the AVO when making her statement on February 19.

When police prosecutor Sergeant Nicholas Dobson objected to the question on relevance grounds, Judge Chris Halburd responded: ‘How’s it not relevant?’

Asked whether he knew the specific offences Studdon had committed against Brown, Constable Smith replied: ‘Not off the top of my head, no.’

The court also heard evidence from a friend of Studdon’s who insisted text exchanges between the pair were about her ordering an Uber for Studdon rather than buying drugs.

The earliest allegation against Brown is that on November 17, 2023, she grabbed Studdon around the neck and pushed her into a wall at Mercure Penrith, next to the Panthers Leagues Club.

Next, she is accused of dragging Studdon away from her friends and throwing a drink over her on August 31, 2024, at the beachside Northies venue in Cronulla.

A more serious assault allegedly took place at Brown’s family home at Green Point on the Central Coast after a wedding on March 16, 2025.

On that occasion, Brown is accused of punching Studdon in the face, cutting her lip and causing swelling to her mouth, as well as damaging the screen on her phone.

A fourth assault allegedly occurred on May 19 last year at Studdon’s family home at Botany, south of the city, where Brown is accused of biting her thumb.

The final charge relates to Brown allegedly slapping Studdon’s face on August 25 last year at her girlfriend’s home at Eastlakes, also in Sydney’s inner-south. 

Studdon’s friend Sian George, who only provided a statement to police on Thursday morning, gave evidence by audio-visual link about the alleged Green Point assault.

Ms George was holding her newborn baby in her arms and was unsure whether to take an affirmation or oath. 

‘Whatever, oath’s fine,’ she said, before she was asked if she believed in God and replied, ‘No.’

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Metallica Rose Harrison Mugshot Revealed After Alleged Murders

Ms George said she had known Brown for about five years and Studdon for a year or two. She remained in contact with Studdon.

Brown, Studdon and Ms George had been among the guests to attend a Central Coast wedding at North Entrance on March 15 last year. After the wedding, Ms George went back to the bride and groom’s house.

Ms George said she received a message about 11pm from Studdon, who was with Brown at her family’s Green Point home, saying something like, ‘Sian, I need your help.’

Studdon later sent her a photograph showing blood all over her face and a cut lip, the witness told the court.

Ms George said she called an Uber for Studdon who arrived at the newlyweds’ home between 12.30am and 1am while she was standing with her partner Josh outside the house.

‘She got out of the Uber,’ Ms George said. ‘She was quite distressed and scared. Her face was pretty much covered in blood. She had a cut lip.’

Ms George said Brown arrived shortly afterwards in her own car and exchanged words with Studdon through the window.

‘They were just going back and forth saying things that happened, sort of leading up to the event,’ she told the court.

Ms George said once inside the house Studdon told her Brown had hit her and broken her phone. Studdon allegedly said, ‘I don’t know why she did this. I don’t know what I did wrong.’

Under cross-examination, Ms George agreed guests at the wedding had been drinking alcohol but said she was ‘not too sure’ if any had been taking drugs.

She was then shown a text Studdon sent her while she was still at Green Point which included the words: ‘Just get me something’, ‘I’ll pay for everything for the rest of the night’ and ‘I just need to get out of here.’

Ms Huseyin put it to Ms George that the message was a reference to buying drugs but she insisted it was about ordering Studdon an Uber.

She then read a text Studdon had sent Ms George which said: ‘Thanks babe but let’s party f*** this s*** split lit let’s go’ and another containing the words ‘I can’t wait to have something numb to f*** this crazy.’

Ms George denied those texts had anything to do with drugs.

She could not recall Brown contacting her the next morning to ask if Studdon wanted a lift back to Sydney. 

At the end of Ms George’s evidence, the hearing was adjourned until December, when Studdon will give her evidence. 

Studdon was given a severe dressing-down when sentenced for her crimes against Brown by Judge Megan Greenwood in February.  

Downing Centre Local Court heard that Studdon had accused Brown of being unfaithful to her with a man, but that claim was not substantiated and the Daily Mail does not suggest it is true. 

Brown had told Studdon ‘do not message me again’ and blocked her number and profile on social media.

The former State of Origin halfback then proceeded to contact Brown via a private phone number, calling her almost 30 times.

The court heard Studdon had transferred $1 to Brown’s bank account, writing in the payment description: ‘Check msgs, enjoy the d**k. Can stop being suss and own up.’

‘You make me go off ’cause of what you’re doing. Didn’t need to use me just so you could see if something else would work.’

On January 12, Studdon went to Brown’s home, repeatedly knocked and kicked her door, saying ‘You’re having f**king sex, are ya?’ 

Judge Greenwood said Brown would have been ‘terrified’ and described Studdon’s conduct as ‘classic controlling behaviour’.

‘No one should ever have to put up with being treated like this,’ Ms Greenwood said, warning Studdon she was fortunate not to be jailed.

‘You do this again, that’s where you’re going,’ she told Studdon.

Ms Greenwood put Studdon on a two-year intensive correction order and fined her $2,200.

Studdon, who is currently without an NRLW club, was a member of the Women’s All Stars team and captained the Blues in the first Women’s State of Origin in 2018, which NSW won.

She began her professional rugby league career in 2018, signing for the Sydney Roosters, before stints at St George Illawarra, Parramatta and Cronulla.

This is the civil servant accused of fraudulently holding down five full-time government jobs while working remotely.

Kashim Chowdhury, 55, allegedly concealed his existing employment to secure additional positions with several departments, including the Home Office, Defra and the Department of Health and Social Care.

Prosecutors say he claimed he needed to work from home to care for his elderly mother, while sick notes allegedly helped him manage his commitments across multiple roles.

At the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), he allegedly ended a call with his manager and accused her of “badgering” him after she confronted him over the poor standard of his work.

The court heard that Chowdhury received almost £350,000 from eight employers over three years. More than £280,000 of that gross pay was earned during periods when he held multiple full-time positions, jurors were told.

At one stage, his various contracts required him to work 183 hours a week—15 hours more than the 168 hours contained in a seven-day week.

Chowdhury was photographed leaving his mid-terrace property near east London’s fashionable Brick Lane on Thursday morning. Homes in the area can sell for millions of pounds.

Carrying a supermarket bag, he put on a face covering before heading to court.

One of the roles was with the UKHSA, where Chowdhury worked for seven months between 2022 and 2023. His project line manager described his performance during that time as “very poor”.

Carol Hedland told Southwark Crown Court: “I would describe his conduct, attitude, productivity, performance and obviously attendance as being very poor.

“The work that was produced was of substandard quality.”

She said one report prepared by Chowdhury was “very incomplete” and appeared to contain copied-and-pasted sections. Hedland told the jury she spent five hours revising it.

After discussing the report with him, she said Chowdhury ended the call and accused her of “badgering him”.

Because he worked remotely, Hedland said she remembered seeing him on camera “possibly once, no more than twice”.

“Most times the camera was off and Kashim Chowdhury said it was due to laptop issues he had logged,” she said. “But that seemed to go on for quite a while.”

Hedland also told the court that he took a fortnight’s holiday roughly two months after starting the job, despite being assigned to a time-sensitive project, and went on sick leave soon afterwards.

Prosecutor Lucy Organ told jurors that Chowdhury had “obtained and held a series of full-time employments in the civil service and associated public bodies at the same time”.

She said: “By that I mean he obtained and had more than one full-time job at the same time and was being paid for more than one full-time job at the same time.”

‘He achieved this – having concurrent full-time jobs – by making false representations, false declarations, concerning his existing employment status and employment history.

‘He had to because if he told a respective employer he had a full-time job, they wouldn’t have given him another one, would they?

‘He also made, the prosecution say, continuing implied false representations by having a full-time job and not revealing to his employers that he had other full-time employment.

‘In fact members of the jury, you will hear evidence that at times he positively lied about his employment history and having other full-time jobs.

‘He concealed that he had multiple simultaneous employments from his employers.

‘As a result, he was paid for multiple full-time jobs at the same time.

‘We say those jobs were obtained by false representation – fraud – and made a financial gain for himself from this fraud. ‘

His alleged fraud started in June 2020 – three months after the Covid pandemic struck – when he was applying for jobs in government departments despite working full-time for the local council.

In one incident, described as ‘laughable’ by the prosecutor, Chowdhury allegedly wore white make-up during a video call with his boss to seemingly appear ill.

The court heard that Chowdhury had told employers he had to work from home to care for his ‘unwell’ mother.

But Ms Organ said his workload eventually became ‘too much to cope with’ and his performance suffered.

He then allegedly took sick leave from some jobs while continuing to work in his other positions.

The court heard that Chowdhury was signed off work for some jobs due to ‘mixed anxiety and a depressive disorder’, but did not hand his sick note to all his employers.

Jurors heard that the alleged frauds came to light after the National Fraud Initiative began investigating.

Chowdhury, of Whitechapel in east London, denies nine counts of fraud.

The court heard he also worked for the Department of Business and Trade, the Food Standards Agency, the East London NHS Trust, and Tower Hamlets council.

He appeared in the dock wearing a purple open-neck shirt and a dark jacket.

The trial is due to last for around three weeks.

Kelly Clarkson returned to the stage on Wednesday, just four days after her public dispute with a Brooklyn magic shop over a $15,000 mechanical bird ornament exploded online.

The 44-year-old singer voiced her anger on X on Saturday after an employee at the curiosity store Art of Play reportedly declined to sell her Molly, a mechanical bird displayed on the shop’s wall.

Clarkson compared the encounter to a memorable scene from the 1990 film Pretty Woman, in which Julia Roberts’ character, Vivian Ward, is turned away from an upscale Beverly Hills clothing boutique because of her outfit.

While the disagreement continued to draw widespread attention—and newly released security footage offered another glimpse of the encounter—Clarkson appeared to put the controversy aside as she performed at a corporate event at Las Vegas’ Allegiant Stadium.

Dressed to showcase her slim figure, the pop star delivered her hit “Since U Been Gone” and smiled for the audience without referring to the dispute.

“Are you ready?” Clarkson called out before launching into a medley of fan favorites, including “Stronger (What Doesn’t Kill You)” and “My Life Would Suck Without You.”

Clarkson first addressed the incident on Saturday, writing that she had driven to Brooklyn after spotting the store and planning to purchase several items. She claimed she was treated as though she could not afford the merchandise and was told the staffer could find her something similar instead.

“Wow, dude. You’re an idiot and just lost a huge sale,” she wrote. “But y’all should go check out Art of Play in Brooklyn if you enjoy being treated like Julia Roberts’ character in Pretty Woman.”

A $15,000 price label had reportedly been displayed beside Molly on the store wall for some time.

Some of Clarkson’s supporters suggested that seeing the large price tag on an ornament she was then told was unavailable may have intensified her frustration.

Art of Play has said the price applied to an identical ornament that was not actually on display in the store.

On Tuesday, store owner Rubin continued to insist that Molly herself was not available for purchase. The label has since been changed following the controversy and now describes the piece as “the world’s most famous singing bird automata!”

The store previously said it would have been willing to connect Clarkson with Molly’s creator, Seattle-based artist Bliss Kolb, if she wanted to commission a comparable piece.

Speaking to the Daily Mail on Tuesday, Rubin blamed Clarkson for the fallout affecting his business. He claimed the talk show host understood the impact of publicly criticizing the store and putting him “on blast.”

“Kelly Clarkson has put us in danger,” Rubin said. “We have gotten threatening phone calls and threatening text messages.”

‘We’ve been review-bombed. We’re getting harassed on social media.

‘People are showing up and screaming outside of the shop. Our neighbors are getting doxed.

FIND OUT MORE: As Judge Throws Out Trump Charges, Even CNN Admits Fani Willis Keeps Humiliating Herself – NewsFinale

‘Somebody posted something in support of us online and they’re getting attacked by trolls.

‘We had no idea this could happen, but here’s the thing: Kelly Clarkson did, and she chose to do it anyway.’

Rubin suggested Clarkson’s behavior smacked of entitlement and that she had turned an ‘enormous misunderstanding’ into a ‘reprehensible abuse of power’ with her social media flameout.

‘When you have the platform, fame, money, and power that she has, you can’t just try to squash somebody like a bug and expect everybody to give you a pass,’ Rubin added.

The store owner, who also writes children’s books, went on to accuse Clarkson of showing a flash of diva-like behavior as she exited his store at the weekend.

He said she ‘yelled at the shopkeeper on her way out the door.’ 

‘As she was leaving, she said, “You know, I’m never coming here again.”,’ he went on.

Locals have rushed to back Rubin in the wake of the storm, with multiple Brooklyn-ites telling the Daily Mail on Monday that they stood firmly behind him and his business.

One customer, who asked not to be named, said: ‘I mean, it actually could not have happened to nicer people. I’ve been coming here for years. I’m friends with the owners. 

‘The whole thing is ridiculous, and for a celebrity to weaponize her platform of 8 million people on Instagram, 8 million on Twitter, to a tiny, little, independently owned store, owned and run by magicians.’

Rubin said his staff are ‘rattled,’ but also bemused that Molly has become the unexpected star of Clarkson’s online meltdown.

The bird is usually the centerpiece of magic theatre shows laid on by the store.

He joked that Molly’s value has increased one-thousand-fold in the wake of Clarkson’s meltdown.    

‘She is currently, and probably for the rest of time, the most famous automaton in the world.

‘I think what we would do is…maybe if somebody buys her for $15 million, we’ll give $15,000 to all the shopkeepers.

‘Give Bliss a million dollars. Build a little case. Buy some old antique automaton.

‘You can do a lot with $15m.

‘Kelly Clarkson would know.’

Clarkson shot to stardom after winning the first season of American Idol in 2002.

She enjoyed a successful singing career, with hits including Miss Independent and Since U Been Gone.

She launched a successful talk show on NBC in 2019, with The Kelly Clarkson Show ending in August 2026, so she could spend more time with her family. 

Clarkson was married to talent manager Brandon Blackstock between 2013 and 2022. 

Blackstock, who was the father of Clarkson’s children, died of skin cancer aged just 48 in August 2025. 

The Daily Mail has contacted Clarkson’s representatives for comment. 

Mike Tyson’s wife told the High Court that the boxing icon abandoned a £1.5 million advertising deal because it would have been “ridiculous” for him to appear on screen speaking to a giant pigeon shortly before his fight with Jake Paul.

The former heavyweight champion, 60, is being sued in London by Medier Ltd, the promoters behind online gaming brand Rabona.

Medier alleges that Tyson and his company, Tyrannic LLC, breached a sponsorship agreement signed in January 2024. The business is controlled by Tyson’s wife, Lakiha Tyson.

According to the claim, Tyson unlawfully withdrew from the campaign after agreeing to face YouTube personality-turned-boxer Jake Paul in a £15 million exhibition bout.

The planned advertisement would have featured Tyson being interviewed by a performer in a giant pigeon costume before he taught the talking bird how to box.

Lawyers for Medier argue that Tyson and Tyrannic “simply lost interest” in the project once the more lucrative exhibition fight had been secured.

Tyson and Tyrannic deny breaking the agreement. Instead, they claim Medier breached the deal first by insisting that the boxer appear in an online entertainment programme called Talking Pigeons, which they described as “ridiculous”.

Tyson was ultimately beaten by Paul, then 27, in the globally streamed bout, which was shown on Netflix. He later said he had “no regrets” about returning to the ring for one final fight.

The court heard that the Netflix fight was initially scheduled for July 20, 2024, but was postponed until November.

The proposed Rabona programme would have required Tyson to deliver scripted lines alongside four presenters, including one dressed as a pigeon. He was also expected to share stories from his childhood and teach the presenters to box using a mannequin bearing the face of his former rival, Evander Holyfield.

Tyson’s lawyers say the live-stream “performance” went “far beyond the scope” of the contract. They maintain that the agreement only required him to be filmed playing casino games, or other games approved by the company, on its website.

While Mrs Tyson was giving evidence, Medier barrister Ali Reza Sinai told the court that the programme had to be understood in the context of “artistic creation”.

He said: “If you do a show, you want it to be popular. You don’t want people to say, ‘Oh, Mr Tyson is such a boring person online.’”

He added: “It would not have been possible for Mr Tyson to be in Amsterdam without breaching his Netflix agreement.”

“The defendants simply lost interest in the service agreement once the more rewarding exhibition fight was firmly agreed.”

Amanda Hadkiss, representing Tyson and Tyrannic, rejected that account. She previously told the court that the role demanded of Tyson during the live-stream event went “far beyond the scope of what might reasonably be considered to have even been required” under Tyrannic’s obligations.

“Medier was requiring Mr Tyson to participate in an entertainment show format named ‘Talking Pigeons’,” she said.

“The show was to involve four other — unspecified — presenters. One of them was to be dressed as a giant pigeon.”

She said the format involved a scripted role-play performance in which Tyson would deliver prepared lines and interact with the presenters and the pigeon after being “beamed in” to their studio via video link.

‘Mr Tyson was then to be required to be asked a series of questions; to share childhood stories; to teach the presenters how to box using a mannequin containing the face of his former boxing opponent, Evander Holyfield, which the presenters were to punch – and then to play casino games on the Rabona website while interacting with the presenters.

‘The defendants’ position is that the nature of the performance which it was agreed that Mr Tyson would give and which Tyrannic was therefore contractually obliged to provide, is clear.

‘It was agreed that the activities Mr Tyson would be filmed whilst carrying out were ‘playing in casino games’ such as ‘slots, poker, roulette etc’.

‘It was agreed that Mr Tyson would alternatively be filmed playing in ‘other games and events’ but so long as these other games and events were ‘included in Rabona’s website’ and so long as they had been ‘approved’.

‘The nature of the performance Medier was requiring Mr Tyson to give within that stream was both of a very different nature to and exceeded the scope of the performance [the contract] required that Mr Tyson would provide.

‘Tyrannic did not therefore breach [the contract] as a result of indicating in advance that Mr Tyson would not be attending such an event and/or because of Mr Tyson’s non-attendance at the event.’

Mr Sinai  added that the Tysons had been told in prior discussions ‘that the channel has a mascot of a pigeon which will always be present’ and that ‘we hope you see the need for this type of viral content’.

‘The name of the channel is “Talking Pigeons”. Doesn’t that suggest to you that the pigeon would speak?’ said the barrister.

Mrs Tyson told the court: ‘We wanted to go viral, but in a way that makes him and his brand proud, not a way that makes him look ridiculous.

‘It’s comical that I’m reading this [proposal] now because of the ridiculousness of it, putting Mike in a position where he is the butt of the joke, instead of controlling his brand and how he wants to be represented.

‘It was crazy.’

MORE ON THIS: I’ve correctly predicted presidents since 1984 – why I don’t expect Donald Trump to thank me in an unprecedented 2024 – NewsFinale

Mrs Tyson said that she and the boxer have been married for 17 years and that she has been running Tyrannic for 17 years and organising what projects he puts his name to.

‘I make sure that anything that Mike is asked to do is in his style, in his verbiage…then we’ll approve it,’ she said.

‘No talking pigeons…no talking trash to pigeons. We had to push back on the theme of pigeons and punching.

‘[The channel] is “Talking Pigeons”, not fighting pigeons, not literally talking to a pigeon…it’s just the name of the show.

‘What we objected to was the interaction in the way they wanted with the mascot pigeon.

‘He agreed to take part in playing games, but not in the format of these ridiculous plots. Not with big puppets and things which are disrespectful to his brand.

‘Mike didn’t sign up to do a show with stuffed animals…Mike didn’t sign up for this goofy show.’

The barrister argued that the Tysons had three days to disagree with the proposal and discuss the pigeon suit, but said they ‘didn’t do that’.

Mrs Tyson said her team ‘needed a moment’ to get their ‘ducks in a row’, and criticised the firm for their professionalism.

She added: ‘This was us dealing with a company which, to be honest, was amateur hour in the way they wanted to use Mike’s name.’

The barrister responded: ‘The problem for you, you say, was the goofiness of the show, the fact you didn’t like the context of it,’ before putting to her that in fact, ‘you didn’t want him to do the show because you didn’t want him answering questions about the [Jake Paul] fight.

‘It was not consistent with the PR of the Jake Paul fight.’

‘The two things were totally separate things,’ she replied. ‘They weren’t conflicting in any way. We had several other sponsors at the time too.’

Tyson became the youngest heavyweight champion ever at age 20 in 1986, finally quitting top-tier boxing with 50 wins and seven losses.

Tyson’s fondness for racing pigeons has been well documented over the years.

In his autobiography, he detailed how his love for the birds helped him deal with a troubled childhood in New York.

He has also previously admitted having been terrified of confrontation and only got into fighting after beating up a man who killed his pet pigeon.

Mr Justice Richards was told the boxer had agreed to promote ‘gaming services’ under the Rabona brand, doing so at live streaming events and also attending a major gambling conference.

The contract with Medier involved an instalment-based $2million fee for Mr Tyson – payable to Tyrannic – out of which he was paid nearly $190,000 before they parted company.

Mr Sinai, for Medier, claimed Mr Tyson and Tyrannic LLC subsequently broke the contract by failing to perform agreed live streaming events and by ‘terminating’ the contract without proper notice.

Mr Sinai labelled Tyson’s Netflix deal to fight Jake Paul the ‘elephant in the room’, arguing that the boxer ‘simply lost interest’ in his Rabona deal.   

The court heard Tyson’s bout with Jake Paul was originally slated to happen on July 20, 2024, although it ultimately took place in November, with Tyson beaten by the YouTuber-turned-boxer.

But the deal agreed with Medier envisaged that Tyson would attend a ‘PR event’ for Rabona at the high-profile gambling conference in Amsterdam between July 16-19 2024.

Medier’s barrister claimed the right ‘inference’ was that Tyson and Tyrannic feared that participating in the Amsterdam event would conflict with the terms of his Netflix deal, which curtailed non-fight-related sponsorship in the build-up to the Jake Paul clash.

Mr Sinai said: ‘Being in Amsterdam in July was agreed…that was extremely important to Medier

‘The defendants simply lost interest in the service agreement once the more rewarding exhibition fight was firmly agreed.’

Denying the allegation on behalf of the boxer and Tyrannic, barrister Amanda Hadkiss had earlier told the court the ‘performance’ demanded of Tyson in the live stream event went ‘far beyond the scope of what might reasonably be considered to have even been required in order to comply with Tyrannic’s obligations’.

‘The nature of the performance Medier was requiring Mr Tyson to give within that stream was both of a very different nature to and exceeded the scope of the performance [the contract] required that Mr Tyson would provide.

‘Tyrannic did not therefore breach [the contract] as a result of indicating in advance that Mr Tyson would not be attending such an event and/or because of Mr Tyson’s non-attendance at the event.’