News & Media: Court hears footage of man allegedly committing sexual act against pig should be considered inadmissible
Court hears footage of man allegedly committing sexual act against pig should be considered inadmissible
3 hours agoWed 13 Nov 2024 at 4:51am
A Carag Carag man is accused of committing a sexual act against a pig at a regional Victorian piggery. (Supplied: Farm Transparency Project)
In short:
30-year-old Bradley O'Reilly is facing a bestiality charge after footage of him allegedly committing a sexual act against a pig was provided to police earlier this year.
The footage was obtained from Midland Bacon's Carag Carag piggery after animal activists broke into the site in February and installed secret cameras inside it.
What's next?
The matter will return to the Bendigo Magistrates Court in June 2025 when defence and prosecution are expected to provide submissions about why the footage should or should not be considered admissible.
A court has heard that footage of a man allegedly committing a sexual act against a pig should be considered inadmissible because it was illegally obtained.
Bradley O'Reilly, 30, of Carag Carag, in northern Victoria, is facing a bestiality charge after footage of him allegedly committing the act was provided to police earlier this year.
The footage was obtained from Midland Bacon's Carag Carah piggery after animal activists with the Farm Transparency Project broke into the site in February and installed secret cameras.
The activists then passed the footage on to police who charged Mr O'Reilly with bestiality in March.
Mr O'Reilly appeared before the Echuca Magistrates Court on Wednesday with his lawyer Douglas Shirrefs arguing that the footage should not be considered by the court.
"It is illegally obtained video footage and [there are] a number of admissions obtained on that illegally obtained footage," he said.
"[There are] also submissions of images from the illegally taken footage."
Mr Shirrefs also argued that Wednesday's proceedings should be heard under closed court given concerns about prejudicial risk and humiliation for his client.
Magistrate Trieu Huynh refused that application.
"[There is] a presumption of open justice," he said.
"There has been media reporting on this case prior to today."
Magistrate Huynh said defence and prosecution would need to provide submissions about whether the evidence should be deemed admissible or not.
"[If the] argument for inadmissibility … is accepted, that is essentially prosecution's case gone," he said.
The matter will return to the Bendigo Magistrates Court in June.
