Information revealed in a podcast probing the shooting death of Jeffrey Brooks on a south-east Queensland farm "increased the element of motive" but failed to provide police with fresh evidence for criminal charges, an inquest has heard.
Mr Brooks was shot once in the chest with a single-barrel shotgun at a crayfish farm he worked on in Beenleigh.
At the time police ruled the 24-year-old accidentally shot himself, however in 1998 a coroner made an open finding, meaning the exact circumstances could not be determined.
The inquest into the mysterious death was re-opened in 2018, shortly after a podcast produced by News Corp and a feature-length television broadcast by the Seven Network aired in relation to the case.
Throughout both media programs, and the fresh inquiry which started last week, Mr Brooks's family have reiterated their long-held belief their son's death was not an accident.
On Monday, the court heard the two media outlets used the same independent expert, Ben Eu, to conduct separate proximity testing, which measures the distance between the firearm muzzle to the target.
The court heard Mr Eu was not an accredited firearm examiner, but had extensive experience working as a gunsmith, and in ballistics and mechanical testing.
The focus of his testing was to recreate the size of the wound Mr Brooks suffered which was approximately three centimetres, the court heard.
"We were just measuring the maximum diameter," Mr Eu said.
The court heard his results, which varied for the two programs, found the gun would have been considerably further away from Mr Brooks than the original 50cm determined by the ballistics police officer at the time.
However, Mr Eu agreed his testing was limited due to not having the original shot gun, which the court had already heard was destroyed in 1998.
He told the court, even when you use the same make and model, all guns "behave slightly differently".
"Without the actual firearm, I was unable to determine whether [the shotgun] had actually been modified," he said.
Mr Eu accepted that this, paired with a range of other factors including not knowing or using the same degree of barrel choke, meant the testing for both programs "can't be relied on when determining the distance".
"I would agree with that," he said.
A police officer who conducted a review for the state coroner in 2020 comparing the podcast with the original investigation was also called to give evidence.
The court heard Detective Sergeant David Moore reviewed the full transcripts and electronic recordings of interviews, including the independent expert witnesses.
Detective Sergeant Moore told the court he found these statements had not provided any fresh or conclusive information.
"There was actually no new evidence in [the podcast] in relation to how the deceased died to cause further investigation," he said.
Detective Sergeant Moore told the court he believed the shooting "could never be perfectly recreated" due to too many unknowns, including where the weapon was situated when it fired.
"My finding is it's very, very difficult to recreate this scene," he said.
"There's a lot of possibilities and a lot of scenarios you can put together."
When asked about concerns raised in the podcast by Mr Brooks's family, including their son's expertise with firearms, Detective Sergeant Moore told the court this was examined by the earlier inquiry.
"A lot of the statements on that was pretty much regurgitating a lot of the information that was given at the coroner's inquest," he said.
"Yes he was conscious of weapons … but that unfortunately doesn't negate the chances of this being an accident."
Information presented in podcast 'doesn't meet the standard of proof'
Detective Sergeant Moore told the court there was "a lot of information" in the podcast which increased "the element of motive" but that alone did not equate to evidence of an offence.
"That still doesn't meet the standard of proof to put a matter before a court for a criminal charge," he said.
When asked about his opinion of the original investigation, he said he found it was thorough and of a "high standard", but under cross-examination from the family's lawyer accepted he did not look at it in its entirety.
"I didn't conduct a full review because I wasn't asked to," he said.
The inquest continues.
