The Court excluded the first part of Ms Stott's police interview under s 90 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) because police went beyond perfunctory questions after she had been denied access to a solicitor, but admitted the balance of the interview conducted after legal advice was obtained. The secretly recorded conversation between Mr D'Elio and a covert operative in a police cell was admitted notwithstanding the poor audio quality, bravado-inducing questioning, and demeaning conduct by the operative, with the Court holding that conventional jury directions were sufficient to guard against unfair prejudice, though the Court urged excision of laughter from the recording. Various pieces of circumstantial evidence (Google searches, text messages, purchases of cleaning products, alleged lies in police interviews) were admitted as implied admissions or incriminating conduct, while certain Arunta prison calls and a text message about removing 'something' from a car were excluded where no rational jury could exclude innocent explanations, with the Court deferring to the JDA phase determination of the precise permissible uses of admitted evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.