Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti YouTube that he was shown was his. At a time when he was fully represented, he formally accepted sending the video recording to WhatsApp. This was so, despite it being obvious that others were using their telephones to record or photograph the incident as well. He did not take a different stance in the witness box. 33 These matters are the basis of the DPP’s contention that it was not open to the Chief Magistrate to find that she could not be sure that his video recording, even if not the actual recording on YouTube, was, if not identical, then materially similar. ... 37 ………..[T]he admissions and summary of the Respondent’s interview should be summarised in the body of the case or appended as an attachment.” 20. The Chief Magistrate stated an amended case on 30 December 2020. This attached the video she had seen, the admissions and the interview summary, and included the following:“u. I am asked to give the reasons for the factual conclusion set out in question 2. Unfortunately, the evidence of the Respondent had not focussed on the point. At the Case Management stage of the case, the defendant had not made any signed admissions that in interview the police had shown him the video he had taken. In any event, the PET form filled in by the Crown was not in evidence. In the police interview the Respondent had not confirmed beyond doubt that it was his video, he said he believed it to be. v. The most difficult point was whether the signed admissions agreed at a time before the subsequent disclosure was made at the end of the case, should be the basis for a finding that the Respondent was guilty of the charge. Had the disclosure been made sooner, the Respondent would have been asked in terms whether he could say it was the video that he had taken and uploaded on the WhatsApp groups. The timing of the disclosure meant he could not be asked about this. w. The Respondent was not in the video and that might have been an indication he was filming but again there were 30 people at the party but many fewer in the film.. In the circumstances, I thought it more likely than not that his film was the one I had seen but because of the lack of clear evidence on the point, I found I was not sure whether the video seen at the trial was the Respondent’s. x. As to the second point, whether I could be sure the video filmed by the Respondent was similar to the one seen in court,