Fans of Our Nicole Kidman will have been aghast at reports in the Sunday press that her home in Sydney is apparently the subject of sophisticated and incessant surveillance. The Sunday Telegraph reports:

Nicole Kidman has turned the tables on the persistent paparazzi, planting a specialist surveillance team in an unmarked van outside her Sydney mansion 24 hours a day. In an effort to protect their leading lady, Fox Studios has ordered the security guards to gather evidence of the paparazzi’s “stalking-like” behaviour, including taking photographs of individuals and obtaining voice recordings.

The team lives in a solar-panelled mini-van with tinted windows parked outside the star’s Darling Point mansion to monitor every move the paparazzi and media make.

Sources say Kidman is not coping with the public scrutiny of her life, marriage and her husband’s recent rehabilitation. Kidman has also confided that she fears she could be seriously injured in a car crash while being chased by the paparazzi.

The increased security follows Kidman’s court battle with celebrity photographer Jamie Fawcett, whom she accused of intimidating and harassing her.

Meanwhile, celebrity snapper Jamie Fawcett writes:

Dear Crikey,

I am very un-happy about this article for the following reasons.

  1. It contained very little new “news” value.
  2. The only supposed “new” item is her security guards, those employed by Kidman (not Fox Studio’s) are taking pictures of photographers (including the Sunday Telegraph photographer) who attend the premises.
  3. Since her marriage to Tom Cruise her security have always photographed the street and everyone in it with their eight cameras (seven of which are hidden).
  4. The only difference is photographers are now asked to state their name and asked to agree to respect certain conditions. Anyone employed by me has been instructed to agree to this.
  5. There are absolutely no quotes in the story, it is mostly opinion (bias towards her) and was re-hashed from incorrect file copy and was mostly factually incorrect.
  6. I was working on an hourly basis for the paper this past weekend and felt betrayed that no-one had made me aware I was to be the focus of another anti-paparazzi story.
  7. The impetus of the story suggests I am in an on-going battle with Ms Kidman, which is not correct.
  8. Any battle I have with the remnants of the Kidman matters is, a) With the NSW Police (and in which the victim is her former security guard), and b) with Fairfax Press and various incorrect stories by the media.
  9. I have no battle with Kidman or her employees. Kidman did not ever get an interim AVO for the ‘so-called’ bugging matter and I was not charged in 2005. The police brought the listening device charge following a decision of the NSW Supreme Court which denied the Police my DNA evidence due to lack of evidence of the actual use of any device supposedly found near her premises. They now proceed with a very flimsy case of ‘so-called’ possession which is strongly contended.
  10. I was actually at the Kidman house by consent on Friday to serve various Subpoena (connected to the Police matter for various records) and my still photograph was not taken and I was not asked to read or agree to anything new.
  11. The story would leave the ordinary reader with the view I am the cause of all this ‘new’ security activity which is simply not the case.

Regards,

Jamie Fawcett.

And now you know. 

Peter Fray

72 hours only. 50% off a year of Crikey and The Atlantic.

Our two-for-one offer with The Atlantic was so popular we decided to bring it back.

But only for 72 hours.

Use the promo code ATLANTIC2020 and you’ll get 50% off a year of Crikey (usually $199) and a year of digital access to The Atlantic (usually $70). That’s BOTH for just $129.

Hurry. Ends midnight this Thursday.

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey

Claim Now