In 2014 Steve Pritchard was charged with two counts of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 81 of theCrimes Act1958 (Vic). The police allege he used a credit card in two separate transactions at an art gallery, to purchase sculptures, one for $40,000 and the other for $55,000. The police allege that the credit card did not belong to Mr Pritchard, beinga card issued to him by his former employer for work expenses, which he failed to return when leaving his job.During a bail application before a magistrate, his then solicitor, Winslow Ebert, said 'Myclient admits that he used the credit card but maintains he had reasonable grounds forbelieving that it was his own card, and that he was entitled to use it'.Mr Pritchard was granted bail and then left Australia. He returned in February 2022 and theOPP has recommenced proceedings against him. At some stage over the past 7 years, thecredit card and the original receipts have been lost from the brief of evidence, and all thatremainsis a photocopy of the $40,000 receipt.As part of the original 2014 investigation, a handwriting expert, Phoebe Warren, had been engaged to compare the signatures on the original credit card receipts with the signature onthe bail undertaking that had been signed by Mr Pritchard. Ms Warren studied history at university, and moved into handwriting as a speciality because of her uncommon gift of deciphering illegible scripts. Although she has not undertaken any specialized training, she has been working in the area for over thirty years and is highly regarded in forensic circles.Ms Warren found that both receipts had been signed by the same person. In her notes, whichare kept safely archived, all the details of both receipts are recorded.Steve Pritchard is defending the charges against him, and denies that he signed the credit card receipts. He now has a new legal team

Q1

Would the transcript of the original bail application hearing be admissible in thetrial?

Q2

The prosecution wish to call Mr Ebert to give evidence about his statement to thecourt. Are there any objections the defence could raise to Mr Ebert's evidence?

Q3 If the prosecution call Ms Warren to give evidence as to her findings,in what circumstances would she be able to refer to her notes?Could the notes themselves be admitted as evidence in the trial?