Mena v Director of Public Prosecutions

Mena appealed against his conviction for an offence. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by McCallum CJ, Baker and Bromwich JJ.

The central issues before the Court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, whether the trial judge had erred in providing directions to the jury regarding identification evidence, and whether the trial judge had failed to issue a warning under s 165(1)(d) of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT) concerning unreliable evidence from a witness criminally concerned in the events. Additionally, the Court considered whether the decision to admit audiovisual recordings into evidence was legally wrong.

The Court found that no grounds of appeal were made out. It reasoned that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence presented, and that the directions given by the trial judge concerning identification evidence were appropriate. Furthermore, the Court determined that the circumstances did not necessitate a warning under s 165(1)(d) of the *Evidence Act 2011* (ACT), and that the admission of the audiovisual recordings was not an error in law.

Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.