1. The prosecution seeks to rely on the call charge record evidence to demonstrate that at the time of the carjacking the applicant's phone, and by inference he himself, was in the vicinity of that event.
2. The phone records are further consistent with the applicant travelling to Big Hill in accordance with B's narrative.
3. The prosecution relies on the combination of the phone records and the GPS records to show that the Hilux was driven in the direction of Bendigo, where it can be tracked broadly to addresses connected to the applicant, and then to the point in Reservoir the following day where he was arrested near the vehicle.
4. In a record of interview, the applicant:

(a) denied knowing anything about the carjacking;

(b) denied being in the area of Macedon at all on the day of the carjacking;

(c) asserted he had been in Werribee on that day and slept into the afternoon;

(d) said he travelled from Werribee after dark to Bendigo in order to see his son;

(e) said he visited his son and his son's mother, arriving about 11:00 pm in Bendigo;

(f) said that, after then visiting a friend, he had exchanged some methamphetamine for the Hilux, which he drove back to Melbourne before being arrested in Reservoir.

1. The defence objects to the admission of the evidence of the phone and GPS records and made an application to the trial judge to exclude it.
2. The application was made on the following bases:

(a) the prosecution will seek to place before the jury the raw data of the call charge records which will not be able to be understood by the jury without a witness who can explain them;

(b) witnesses for the prosecution, both in relation to the phone records and the GPS data, do not have the requisite level of expertise to give evidence to explain how the data is collected and what may influence the accuracy of the data;

(c) in turn, this will leave the defence with no witness through whom to challenge that evidence;

(d) in turn this will be evidence to which the jury may attach too much weight and will either: be misleading, confusing and a waste of time;[4] or occasion unfair prejudice to the accused such as to outweigh the probative value of the evidence.[5]

1. In a careful and comprehensive ruling the trial judge rejected this application on 15 September 2025. On the same day the applicant sought certification to seek leave to appeal the interlocutory decision. The judge, pursuant to s 295(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, certified that the evidence, if ruled inadmissible, would eliminate or substantially weaken the prosecution case.
2. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal that ruling on the following grounds:

(1) That the learned trial judge erred in holding the evidentiary material in relation to call charge records was relevant and admissible, that evidentiary material being:

(a) the mobile phone data depicted in the Microsoft Excel spreadsheets; and

(b) the mobile call charge records contained in the depositions.

(2) That the learned trial judge erred in holding the evidentiary material in relation to vehicle GPS data was relevant and admissible, that evidentiary material being:

(a) the vehicle GPS data report; and

(b) the evidence of Mr Rod Markwell.

(3) That the learned trial judge erred in holding the evidence of Sgt Duncan Browne, including the animated mapping he produces, was relevant and admissible as expert opinion evidence within the meaning of section 79 of the Evidence Act 2008.

1. For the reasons which follow, we would grant leave to appeal and uphold ground 3. The video mapping evidence of the call charge records is not admissible in its current form. We would otherwise refuse leave to appeal.

1. The GPS records were the subject of evidence from Mr Rodney Markwell. The trial judge summarised that evidence as follows:

Mr Markwell is the owner of Your Fleet which has been running since approximately 2021. His company installs GPS tracking on vehicles and monitors the data from the trackers. A company called Euclidic provides the GPS trackers and the software to monitor the data.

One of the businesses Mr Markwell's company works with is Olam Orchards which has 110-115 vehicles.

On 22 January 2023 Mr Markwell received a call from police at about 10-11pm requesting location information of the stolen Hilux. He provided information from the GPS data indicating it was in Bendigo. He thereafter received numerous calls seeking updated location information. On one occasion he recalled the vehicle was moving along the McIvor Highway towards Melbourne and doing very high speeds, of about 160km per hour.

He eventually identified the location of the Hilux in Tambo Avenue and Acheron Avenue in Reservoir and provided those addresses to police over the phone.

Several days later he provided access to the GPS data software to police.

In evidence he stated that he installs the devices according to the guidance provided. He knows how the device works. He confirmed the device can track a range of driving as well as location. He could not explain how speed zones were 'known' but believed it was from Google Maps. Their main interest is speed and the geography of a vehicle. He could not answer how the GPS function works; that is, how the device gathers the location information other than to say it is part of the software function.

He was able to give evidence about the relative accuracy of the location of a vehicle, at times to a street name and number while at other times, a street only will be given. In remote areas it will rely on a GPS signal, but failure to report where the vehicle is is [sic] rare. He was not aware of anything which could impact the accuracy of location information, stating that 'Any time we've looked for the whereabouts of a car, the information the tracker provide on location has always been fully accurate.'

He agreed that terrain could affect tracking in the event the GPS could not get a signal, 'but that's rare that we have that situation.' He agreed that he could not speak for times when he is not checking the system. No error reports are run and he was unaware - and deferred to Euclidic - regarding whether the software has a function to detect such errors. The system does not create an alert for a faulty tracker. A fault will only be detected once he has logged on to see a particular vehicle.

The report in relation to the stolen Hilux involved logging into Fleet Gate and running a report on that vehicle. That showed 50-100 locations over a 24 hour period. He stated that was done by date range and said the system brings up every location where its 'pinged over a period of maybe 24 hours or more.' That is provided in Excel spreadsheet form.

At times he agreed an end address location and starting address may differ. He could not explain how that comes about, and said it was a question for Euclidic.

He was not aware of any errors or faults identified in the report generated in this case.[6]

1. In turn, the call charge records evidence was summarised by the trial judge as follows:

Data was provided to the informant by Vodafone in relation to what is said to be Mr [Moorhouse's] phone, and from Telstra in relation to the phones of [B] and [Ms K].

That raw data was entered by the informant into a software program called TRIPS which converts it into excel spreadsheets.

The informant has also produced tables of the call charge records.

The call charge records data was provided by the informant to Sgt Duncan Browne. Sgt Browne made a statement on 9 September 2025. Sgt Browne gave evidence at a s 198B Criminal Procedure Act 2009 hearing on 10 September 2025.

He is a Sergeant of Police stationed at the Transit Safety Division, Divisional Response Unit (DRU), Melbourne. He has been an Intelligence Analyst attached to the DRU since December 2001. He completed the Victoria Police Primary Analysis Course and qualified as Victoria Police Intelligence Analyst in 2002 and in 2007 completed the Victoria Police Tactical Intelligence Course. Tactical Intelligence describes intelligence likely to be used by investigators to advance or greatly assist in their investigations. He has also completed a number of Victoria Police training courses relating to IT applications to maintain his qualification as an Intelligence Analyst.

As a part of his duties, he provides intelligence to investigations with regard to telecommunications data and mapping. This involves extracting raw telecommunications data into usable data for analysis and then the use of this data by the investigating teams.

He explained that raw telecommunications data is extracted and converted into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets by a Victoria Police application called TRIPS. Once in that form it can be analysed and allows immediate observations of the phone usage, for example: call frequency counts, locations by cell tower counts, cell mapping page, etc.

Despite the different format of raw data provided by various telecommunications providers (telcos) data from different telcos is converted by TRIPS into a common, usable and understandable format.

He was trained in the use of the TRIPS program in around 2016 and has been using it since to interpret telecommunications data and assist investigators.

Data from TRIPS in turn can be entered into a separate Victoria Police application called ArcGIS Pro. That application creates the mapping aspect of a phone's movement across a Telco's network. Any mapping or interpretation of the data does not involve removal or editing lines of data from the TRIPS application.

Sgt Browne completed a 1 day internal training program in relation to the ArcGIS Pro program in 2023. He has been using that application or its predecessor mapping telecommunications data for ten years. He has provided mapping to support investigations or provide a visual aid for Police Prosecutors to quickly digest what can sometimes be thousands of lines of spreadsheet data.

The ArcGIS Pro application can produce single page static views or map layout to plot telecommunications data, or animated video (video format) to enable a viewer to watch the movement of a user's phone.

He confirms he is not a telecommunications expert or qualified telecommunications engineer.

In his statement he outlines the definition of call charge records and event based monitoring data and the different way they produce data by connecting to phone towers.[7]

1. The trial judge held that the evidence of Mr Markwell with respect to GPS tracking was admissible. In summary:
   • Mr Markwell's evidence of the tracking of the Hilux on the night of 22 January 2023 and the following day was not expert evidence;
   • Mr Markwell was able to describe how a tracking device is connected to a vehicle and what data can be obtained from it;
   • the jury would be able to make its own assessment of the reliability of the tracking by reference to the evidence as a whole in the trial;
   • the evidence was relevant and probative of the movement of the Hilux, noting that the critical time for proof of the offending was between 4:00 and 5:30 pm;
   • the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, nor was it evidence which would take up undue time or be misleading or confusing to the jury;
   • directions could be given to the jury with respect to the limitations of the evidence; and
   • the original report of the Hilux produced by the software used in Mr Markwell's business should be provided to the defence.
2. Insofar as the call charge data is concerned, her Honour ruled:
   • The call charge records and Excel spreadsheets produced from them constituted business records of the relevant telecommunications network providers ('telcos') within the meaning of s 69 of the Evidence Act.
   • There are parts of the Excel spreadsheets which have headings which are not clear but the relevant data concerning time and location is apparent from the spreadsheets and made clear in the call charge records.
   • The extent of the spreadsheet data should be limited by producing only the relevant data for 22 and 23 January 2023.
   • Both the spreadsheet and call charge records are relevant and admissible; both show times of phone calls and the relevant phone tower to which a mobile phone was connecting.
   • The phone records show the applicant was broadly in the vicinity of Willeys Road at the time of the carjacking and as such are highly probative as part of the circumstantial case.
   • The admissibility of the evidence does not depend upon expert evidence regarding the scientific basis of the collection of the phone tower and call data.
   • It was not necessary to call evidence from a geographic information specialist to verify maps of the phone tower data.
   • Sergeant Browne had the requisite expertise to give evidence about the use of phone data to generate mapping and to interpret that mapping for the following reasons:

In order to perform his role as an intelligence analyst, and to provide information to investigating teams, Sgt Browne is required to and does have an understanding of the data which is produced. His training in both the TRIPS program and the ArcGis Pro application and his experience using both, means he has an understanding of the communication between a mobile phone and a phone tower and of the way that connection is depicted visually on a map or animation.

To that end, and as I have extracted above from Sgt. Browne's evidence, he is able to explain what can be analysed and how that is represented on the static and animated mapping. Specifically relevant here, and similar to Mr Chang, he is able to explain the way a tower is represented on a map or animation and where there is a bearing arc what that represents and what the limitations are. He states 'Interpretations of the data, bearing information and cell movement is based on both the mapping application training and experience of analysing hundreds of telco records over the years.'

Although he may not understand the underlying science or technology regarding how signals are produced and how they connect to a tower, that is not necessary for him to give evidence about what is depicted and its interpretation. He has gained specialised knowledge beyond that of lay people and other police and he has acquired that knowledge through his training and experience.[8]

• The visual aids produced by Sergeant Browne would materially assist the jury by presenting a visual depiction of the raw data.[9]
• The case is factually analogous to Godwin (a pseudonym) v The King,[10] in that Sergeant Browne has specialised knowledge based on his experience. The judge explained:

The similarities with this case are apparent. In my view Sgt. Browne is an expert who has acquired specialised knowledge over the course of 23 years, accompanied by training in various software programs and interpretation of their output. Much like Mr Horne, Sgt. Browne's evidence does go further than just making voluminous data more manageable. He gives expert evidence about the nature of mobile phone communication with phone towers and how they interact. Further, his evidence about the interpretation of the maps produced is drawn on his expertise as an analyst of such information.

Whether he understands the science of how the software produces the maps, or of how a bearing arc is identified, does not detract from the expert evidence he can give.[11]

• The mapping produced by Sergeant Browne and the conclusions to be drawn from that mapping can be explored in cross-examination. The limitations of evidence as to matters such as bearing arcs can be clarified for the jury.
• The relativities of the mapping will be capable of assessment by the jury in the context of the evidence as a whole.
• The evidence is of strong probative value and will not give rise to unfair prejudice.
• The call charge records evidence is relevant and admissible.

1. The basal evidence relating to telephone calls comprises data collected and maintained by Telstra and TPG Telecom (Vodafone) with respect to the mobile phones of the applicant, B and Ms K, pursuant to statutory obligations under s 187(A) and 187(AA) of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). Evidence of the data is comprised in Excel spreadsheets which are the subject of proposed ground 1(a).
2. This data was processed by the informant using the TRIPS program rendering it more analysable and useable.
3. In turn the informant also produced tables summarising the relevant call charge records. Proposed ground 1(b) relates to the informant's summary tables setting out relevant call charge records.
4. It is not disputed that the Excel spreadsheets containing call charge data are business records of the relevant telcos within the meaning of s 69(1) of the Evidence Act.[12]
5. In his written case the applicant submitted that the Excel spreadsheets were nonetheless not covered by the business records exception to the hearsay rule as a result of s 69(3) of the Evidence Act. Section 69(3) provides:

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the representation -

(a) was prepared or obtained for the purpose of conducting, or for or in contemplation of or in connection with, an Australian or overseas proceeding; or

(b) was made in connection with an investigation relating or leading to a criminal proceeding.

1. On the application for leave to appeal the submission was not pressed.
2. The applicant's fundamental submission in respect of proposed ground 1 is that in the absence of further expert evidence the limitations and relativities of the call charge evidence, comprised in the Excel spreadsheets and summarised in the tables, cannot be fully explored in cross-examination and properly evaluated.
3. More particularly it is submitted:

(a) Sergeant Browne does not possess the expertise to allow the defence to properly explore the limitations of the call charge data;

(b) in consequence the jury may give the data undue weight; and

(c) the evidence is unfairly confusing. The applicant submits by way of example that the call charge record tables do not make clear the precise location of named cell towers.

1. In turn the applicant submits that the evidence should be excluded under either s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act. Section 135 provides:

135 General discretion to exclude evidence

The court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might -

(a) be unfairly prejudicial to a party; or

(b) be misleading or confusing; or

(c) cause or result in undue waste of time; ...

1. Section 137 of the Evidence Act provides:

137 Exclusion of prejudicial evidence in criminal proceedings

In a criminal proceeding, the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

1. The respondent submits that Sergeant Browne's experience qualifies him to produce the relevant evidence. Further the documentary evidence will clarify rather than make the effect of the data misleading or confusing. The limitations of Sergeant Browne's knowledge can be explored in cross-examination, as they were on the preliminary hearing, and be made clear to the jury.
2. Insofar as the s 137 application is concerned the respondent further submits that the probative value of the evidence, viewed in context, is high and its effect is not unfair. The summary tables can be checked against the raw data which has been provided to the applicant.
3. The approach this court should take to the application of these provisions is now well settled. In Wagner,[13] Priest, McLeish and Orr JJA summarised the relevant task as follows:

The application of s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 requires the making of three evaluative assessments, namely the weight of the probative value of the evidence, the extent of any danger of unfair prejudice, and then a comparison of one with the other. Because there can only be one correct answer resulting from this process (or the process involved in the application of s 135), it follows that the relevant standard to be applied by an appellate court in considering an appeal from a ruling as to whether or not evidence should be excluded under one of these provisions is the correctness standard. This means we are to determine for ourselves whether the judge was correct to decline to exclude the reference table and the base station evidence under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 2008, while making due allowance for any advantages enjoyed by the judge in seeing the evidence given by the witnesses at the hearing of the pre-trial application.[14]

1. In our view the Excel spreadsheets containing call charge data and the summary tables are relevant and admissible.
2. Sergeant Browne has sufficient specialised knowledge to produce the call charge data and Excel spreadsheets by reason of his experience as an intelligence analyst who has conducted multiple analyses based on call charge records since 2016.[15]
3. Section 79(1) of the Evidence Act provides:

If a person has specialised knowledge based on the person's training, study or experience, the opinion rule does not apply to evidence of an opinion of that person that is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge.

1. In Honeysett v The Queen[16] French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ said:

'Specialised knowledge' is to be distinguished from matters of 'common knowledge'. Specialised knowledge is knowledge which is outside that of persons who have not by training, study or experience acquired an understanding of the subject matter. It may be of matters that are not of a scientific or technical kind and a person without any formal qualifications may acquire specialised knowledge by experience. However, the person's training, study or experience must result in the acquisition of knowledge. The Macquarie Dictionary defines 'knowledge' as 'acquaintance with facts, truths or principles, as from study or investigation' and it is in this sense that it is used in s 79(1).[17]

1. Insofar as the applicant's submission is directed to the summary call charge record tables, as distinct from the Excel spreadsheets, we note that the applicant did not seek to cross-examine the informant upon the preliminary hearing. We do not accept that the tables have been shown to be relevantly incomplete, misleading or confusing. Moreover they are likely to expedite rather than delay the hearing.
2. Likewise, the Excel spreadsheets have not been shown to be relevantly incomplete, misleading or confusing. Insofar as is necessary, the jury can be directed to relevant entries and directed to ignore other entries.
3. We accept that, taken at its highest, the value of the call charge evidence is high as a component of the circumstantial case tending to confirm the presence of the applicant at the site of the carjacking and the general credibility and reliability of B's evidence with respect to the applicant's movements.
4. The danger of unfair prejudice to the applicant is low:

(a) The basic limitations of the evidence are apparent on the face of the documents and the summary tables are capable of being checked against the call charge data.

(b) Limitations of the inferences which can be drawn from the data were acknowledged by Sergeant Browne both in his statement and in cross-examination. The trial judge set out the relevant evidence at [54]-[59] of her ruling.[18]

(c) Sergeant Browne has sufficient specialised knowledge to give his proposed evidence by reason of his extensive experience processing call charge data. The basis and effect of that evidence can be explored in cross-examination.

(d) The jury will evaluate the evidence in the context of the circumstantial evidence as a whole including e.g. the CCTV footage from the BP service station.

(e) The use of the evidence will be subject to appropriate directions from the trial judge.

(f) The call charge evidence in issue is of a type commonly presented to juries and we are not satisfied that it will be misleading, confusing or cause or result in an undue waste of time.

1. It follows that the complaints made pursuant to s 135 are not made out and insofar as s 137 is relied upon we are satisfied that the probative value of the call charge record evidence will not be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the applicant. Ground 1 must fail.

1. Mr Markwell's evidence establishes that he utilised hardware and software supplied by Euclidic to his business Your Fleet for the purpose of tracking the Hilux prior to its recovery. The recording of the tracking was also undertaken as part of his business. Despite the fact that the spreadsheets recording the tracking were produced by Euclidic they constituted records of Mr Markwell's business.
2. Whilst the applicant's written case again sought to rely on s 69(3) of the Evidence Act as excluding the application of the business records exemption to the hearsay rule, this submission was again not pressed on the application for leave to appeal.
3. The applicant submits that Mr Markwell was unable to sufficiently explain how the GPS tracking device attached to the Hilux worked to assist the jury in its task. Similarly he could not explain how the Euclidic software worked, including matters such as the nomination of addresses as locations in response to GPS data. Nor could Mr Markwell explain discrepancies in timing between a table obtained by the informant utilising the Euclidic software and a spreadsheet obtained by Mr Markwell directly from Euclidic.
4. The applicant submits that in the circumstances the GPS evidence is likely to lead to an undue waste of time and would be misleading or confusing. Moreover the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the undue prejudice that it may cause the applicant.
5. The respondent submits that the GPS tracking data was kept by Your Fleet for the purpose of its business although produced by Euclidic. Mr Markwell's evidence is relevant and probative of the movement of the Hilux. There is no danger of unfair prejudice. The applicant has the data and can cross-examine Mr Markwell as to its limitations. GPS data is well understood by the general public. The evidence has high probative value and should not be excluded.
6. In our view Mr Markwell's extensive experience in utilising the relevant tracking technology enables him to give evidence as to its effective use and reliability.
7. The reliability of the tracking evidence will fall to be assessed against the circumstantial evidence as a whole, including the evidence of the circumstances in which the Hilux was recovered.
8. The limitations of the evidence are capable of exploration before the jury and the use of the evidence is susceptible of appropriate directions by the trial judge.
9. The evidence is relevant and highly probative of the movements of the Hilux. It is neither misleading nor confusing, and is not unduly prejudicial.
10. In our view it should be admitted. Ground 2 must fail.

Proposed ground 3 - the video mapping evidence

1. Sergeant Browne undertook video mapping which was intended to present the call charge record data and the GPS data in a form which was readily comprehensible and useable by the jury. If it is accepted that the call charge record evidence and GPS tracking evidence is relevant and admissible for the reasons we have stated in considering proposed grounds 1 and 2, then there is limited room for objection in principle to the production of video mapping to render that evidence more easy to use.
2. Sergeant Browne has sufficient specialised knowledge by reason of his experience to explain what the video mapping shows.
3. The video mapping was generated from outputs of the TRIPS program which had been utilised to process the call charge record data contained in the Excel spreadsheets.
4. As the applicant's argument was developed, however, it became apparent that in one respect the application of the TRIPS program to the raw call charge data involved an input which was not drawn from that data.
5. Whilst the Telstra call charge records contain a record of bearings which indicate the direction from which the relevant phone call connected to the specified call tower, in contrast, the Vodafone call charge records do not. The Telstra records contain columns indicating start location bearings and end location bearings for particular phone calls. In contrast, as the respondent conceded, the Vodafone data does not provide bearing 'angles'.
6. Insofar as the video mapping indicates bearings for phone calls from the applicant's phone (the subject of Vodafone records), it follows that those bearings are derived from a source other than the call charge data provided by Vodafone as part of its business records.
7. In the circumstances we accept that symbols contained in the video mapping which depict arcs reflecting the direction from which relevant calls were received are inadmissible. They are not justified by the Vodafone call charge records.
8. By way of example, Appendix A to this judgment is a still extracted from the video mapping prepared by Sergeant Browne from the Vodafone call charge records with respect to the applicant's phone. It shows a call contacting the Macedon call tower at 5:08:17 pm on 22 January 2023. It further shows an arc based on a directional bearing from that tower. This arc is not justified by the Vodafone records in evidence because they do not include the bearing on which it is based.
9. Although the video mapping undertaken by Sergeant Browne does otherwise reflect basic relevant call charge and GPS data and is of utility in these respects, nonetheless, because it also contains an element which is of no probative value, it creates a real risk that the arcs depicted on the mapping will have a prejudicial effect. Ground 3 must succeed.
10. In consequence the video mapping in its current form must be excluded from the evidence unless further evidence substantiating its basis is adduced. In its present form the danger of unfair prejudice to the applicant outweighs its probative value because it is inherently misleading.[19]

1. In accordance with s 297 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, we are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal having regard to:

(a) the minimal delay to the trial process that should result;

(b) the need to resolve an issue of evidence which is necessary for the proper conduct of the trial; and

(c) the serious undesirability of allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence of video mapping in the form currently proposed.

1. We will grant leave to appeal with respect to proposed ground 3, set aside the trial judge's decision with respect to the video mapping of call charge records and GPS tracking records, and direct that the matter be remitted for further hearing in accordance with this decision.

[1] Because this is an interlocutory proceeding, a pseudonym has been used in place of the name of the applicant and the reasons have been prepared in a form which omits identifying details.

[2] Contrary to s 79A of the Crimes Act 1958.

[3] Contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958. The applicant is charged in the alternative with recklessly causing serious injury contrary to s 17 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[4] Evidence Act 2008, s 135 ('Evidence Act').

[5] Evidence Act, s 137.

[6] DPP v [Moorhouse (a pseudonym)] (County Court of Victoria, Judge Riddell, 15 September 2025) [25]-[35] ('Ruling no 1').

[8] Ibid [106]-[108] (emphasis in original). The reference to Mr Chang is a reference to the facts in Wagner (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 56 ('Wagner').

[10] [2024] VSCA 225 ('Godwin').

[12] The dictionary to the Evidence Act defines 'document' as follows: document means any record of information, and includes - ... (c) anything from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or (d) a map, plan, drawing or photograph; ... Section 69 of the Evidence Act states: Exception - business records (1) This section applies to a document that - (a) either - (i) is or forms part of the records belonging to or kept by a person, body or organisation in the course of, or for the purpose of, a business; or (ii) at any time was or formed part of such a record; and (b) contains a previous representation made or recorded in the document in the course of, or for the purposes of, the business. (2) The hearsay rule does not apply to the document (so far as it contains the representation) if the representation was made - (a) by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact; or (b) on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact.

[13] [2025] VSCA 56.

[15] Godwin [2024] VSCA 225, [46]-[50] (Priest, Taylor and Orr JJA). See also Davies v The Queen [2019] VSCA 66, [176]-[177] (Kaye, McLeish and T Forrest JJA).

[17] Ibid 131 [23] (emphasis in original).

[19] Cf Moreno (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 98, [93] (Priest AP, Niall and Kaye JJA).