A man accused of committing an act of bestiality with a sow at a pig farm where his father works has been cleared of all charges after a magistrate delivered a scathing critique of Victoria Police's handling of the investigation. The case, which relied on covert footage obtained by animal rights activists, collapsed in court due to what was described as "plainly improper" and "recklessly deceptive" police conduct.
Case Dismissed Over Illegal Evidence and Police Tactics
Bradley O'Reilly, 32, from Carag Carag, faced a single charge of bestiality following an incident allegedly captured on February 11, 2024, at Midland Bacon pig farm in country Victoria. The farm is managed by his father, Ricky O'Reilly. Activists from the Farm Transparency Project, who were investigating alleged animal welfare abuses, had secretly installed a camera that recorded a person with their pants down allegedly engaging with a sow numbered 8416, which activists later named Olivia.
However, on Thursday, Magistrate Williams dismissed the charge after eviscerating the police case. He ruled that the video evidence was obtained illegally and therefore inadmissible in court. The magistrate emphasised that "vigilantism, even for laudable reasons, cannot and should not be encouraged," highlighting the legal boundaries surrounding evidence collection by private groups.
Police Interview Conduct Branded 'Deliberately Misleading'
The court heard detailed criticisms of how police officers interacted with O'Reilly following his arrest. Officers were recorded telling him, "We're going to try and help you" and "We're not about punishing you or trying to embarrass you," which the magistrate described as "highly improper" and "deliberately misleading." These statements implied that O'Reilly might avoid charges if he confessed, despite police knowing a charge was likely.
O'Reilly had no idea the conversation was being secretly recorded. Police later claimed he said "I did it" after recording stopped, but the magistrate dismissed this alleged confession, noting it was not referenced in O'Reilly's 24-minute formal interview record. That interview was also thrown out, with Magistrate Williams finding police engaged in "oppressive conduct" by repeatedly making misleading promises of help.
Furthermore, the court found that while O'Reilly was initially told of his right to a lawyer upon arrest, no officer explicitly asked him again before or during the formal interview whether he wished to exercise that right. In his testimony, O'Reilly described a "sinking feeling" when charged, as he had not expected that outcome based on police assurances.
Previous Convictions for Domestic Violence Revealed
While O'Reilly has been cleared of the bestiality allegation, it has emerged that he is a convicted domestic violence offender. In August 2024, he pleaded guilty in Shepparton Magistrates' Court to 22 charges, including recklessly engaging in conduct that placed his victim in danger of serious injury on multiple occasions. These offences involved strangling, menacing, and assaulting his girlfriend, sometimes in front of her child.
Magistrate Simon Zebrowski, who presided over that case, condemned O'Reilly's behaviour as "disgraceful" and "beyond disgraceful," noting it was severe enough to warrant imprisonment. Instead, O'Reilly received a two-year community corrections order, requiring 200 hours of unpaid community work and treatment. Zebrowski explicitly stated, "You never put your hands around your partner's throat. Ever. In any way. You certainly don't do things in front of children."
Activist Campaign and Legal Implications
The case has drawn attention to the methods of animal rights groups, with activists mounting a campaign to free the sow, dubbed Olivia, including a petition for her release. However, the magistrate's ruling underscores the legal limitations on evidence obtained through covert means by non-law enforcement entities.
This dismissal highlights significant concerns about police interview techniques and evidence admissibility in Australian courts. The magistrate concluded that obtaining a conviction based on the tainted evidence would come at "a price which is unacceptable having regard to contemporary standards," setting a precedent for future cases involving similar investigative approaches.
