The footage was to be used in a court case against piggery worker Bradley O’Reilly, 32, of Carag Carag, who was charged with bestiality after it was alleged he had sex with a pig at Midland Bacon at Carag Carag in February 2024.
Mr O’Reilly had the charge dismissed after three pieces of evidence — including the video — were ruled inadmissible by a magistrate at Bendigo Magistrates’ Court.
A voir dire — a preliminary examination into admissibility of evidence — was started in June 2025, where Mr O’Reilly’s defence counsel argued footage of him allegedly having sex with a pig was obtained illegally by animal activist group Farm Transparency Project, and should not be allowed to be admitted as evidence.
The magistrate was also asked to rule on the admissibility of an alleged confession by Mr O’Reilly to police in a police car while he was being transported to a police station after his arrest, as well as a subsequent police interview at the station.
In handing down his decision on Thursday, February 5, magistrate Jarrod Williams ruled that all three pieces of evidence were inadmissible, and dismissed the case.
The video of the alleged incident had been illegally obtained by Farm Transparency Project, which installed hidden surveillance cameras in a shed at the piggery between November 11, 2023 and February 11, 2024.
Over the four months, the group obtained 17 to 18 days of footage with the intention of capturing any animal cruelty.
The footage of Mr O’Reilly allegedly having sex with a pig was captured between February 5 and 11, 2024, with the footage passed on to police by the activist group.
The court heard Siena Callander, then 32 and a senior investigator at the Farm Transparency Project, was charged in January 2025 with “unspecified offences”, but the charges did not proceed in court.
In Mr O’Reilly’s voir dire, Mr Williams said after police spoke with Mr O’Reilly in a police car on the way to a police station after his arrest on March 5, 2024, they told him they were there to “help him”, while another said they were “not about embarrassing you, we are here to help” but that he needed to tell them what happened.
That part of the conversation was recorded by police, but two of the police gave evidence in the voir dire that, while in the police car, Mr O’Reilly also made admissions to the incident.
However, Mr O’Reilly denied making those admissions.
The court was told that in an interview at the police station, Mr O’Reilly was not asked about the admissions made in the car, but allegedly did make admissions to sexual penetration of a pig.
Mr Williams said Mr O’Reilly gave evidence in court that he took the police saying they were there “to help” as meaning he was not going to be charged, and that by the time he got to the police station “he thought the interview had started and it was too late to exercise his rights”.
In ruling against the admissibility of using the video in the case, Mr Williams said the video footage obtained by Farm Transparency Project was “made in deliberate contravention of the law” and that “vigilantism … should not and cannot be encouraged”.
“The desirability of admitting the evidence does not outweigh the undesirability of admitting it in the way it was obtained,” he said.
Mr Williams also ruled the admission in the car was also not admissible as evidence and that police officers saying they wanted to “help him” was “recklessly deceptive”.
The magistrate also ruled against the record of interview being admitted as evidence, as it involved “oppressive power” by police.
With all the evidence ruled as inadmissible, Mr Williams dismissed the charge against Mr O’Reilly.
The prosecution was also ordered to pay Mr O’Reilly’s legal costs.
26°C