Admissibility of evidence — evidential interview video — unfairly prejudicial effect — jury trial — Evidence Act 2006, s 8. The Crown applied for an order that the visual footage of the defendant's police interview be admissible. The defendant opposed the application on the basis it would have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the jury trial, per s 8 of the Evidence Act, given it was conducted in prison. The Judge held that given the defendant was not wearing prison clothing, that there was no visible insignia in the room displaying Department of Corrections, and was interview was conducted by a police officer, there would be no adverse inference drawn by the jury. Further, to only allow an audio recording might be more suspicious than allowing the footage. Therefore, the visual footage was ruled admissible. Judgment Date: 25 February 2019.