Geelong football coach’s ‘exceedingly private’ texts before Bali death plunge at centre of girlfriend’s court battle: Now police hit back
Zagi Kozarov, a 52-year-old lawyer, appeared in Melbourne Magistrates' Court facing stalking charges related to the death of her partner, Geelong football coach Zoran Vidovic, who fell from a luxury hotel balcony in Bali in January 2024. Kozarov is demanding access to Vidovic's private correspondence with friends and family, arguing the material is vital to her defence, though police are resisting the request as a "fishing expedition" designed to retrieve potentially irrelevant information.
The court has already provided 558 pages of SMS messages exchanged between Kozarov and Vidovic, but she is now seeking texts and communications between him and other people expected to be witnesses in the case—across 17 different categories of documents. Police argue that most of these messages would contain extremely personal communications from family members and close friends that are none of Kozarov's concern. Magistrate Stephen Lee expressed concerns about the scope of the requests, describing it as "fishing," and will rule on the matter on Friday.
- Lawyer faces stalking charges after partner's Bali hotel death
- Demanding access to late partner's private messages with witnesses
- Police oppose as "fishing expedition"; magistrate ruling Friday
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The right to adequate defence and fair trial requires disclosure of potentially material evidence. If communications between Vidovic and others contain relevant context about the relationship, his state of mind, or information that might support Kozarov's case, she has a legitimate entitlement to that material. The principle of disclosure exists precisely to ensure defendants can mount an informed defence and understand the full evidential picture against them, rather than operating in the dark with access only to what prosecution deems acceptable.
The case against
Proportionality and the privacy rights of innocent third parties must constrain disclosure requests. Demanding 17 categories of deeply personal communications between a deceased person and his family and friends represents an extraordinarily broad fishing expedition with limited justification for invading so many people's private lives. A defendant must identify specific, material communications with genuine relevance, not simply request vast volumes of correspondence on the speculative hope something useful might emerge. Allowing such expansive sweeps would dangerously erode privacy protections for the general public caught up in legal proceedings.