Reti v The Queen

The case of Reti v The Queen involved an appeal against conviction for various charges, including drug trafficking and possession. The issue before the court was the admissibility of visual identification evidence under s 45 of the Evidence Act 2006. The central legal question was whether the requirements of s 45(3)(d) were satisfied, specifically whether the witness, Mrs Tan, was informed that the person to be identified may or may not be among the persons in the procedure. Mrs Tan, who is not a native English speaker, was given an explanation by a police officer, but her daughter, who acted as her translator, did not testify. The court had to determine if the witness's lack of understanding due to the absence of a translator could be inferred from the available evidence.

The court held that the statutory requirements of s 45 must be strictly observed for the identification evidence to be admissible. However, the court reasoned that while it is crucial for the witness to be informed that the person to be identified may or may not be in the procedure, it is not a formal requirement that an interpreter must be called to testify to the translation. Instead, the information can be proved like any other fact, allowing for inferences to be drawn from the available evidence. The court concluded that it was reasonable to infer that Mrs Tan was informed, given the officer's explanation and the lack of any contrary evidence.

The court's decision underscored the importance of the identification procedure outlined in s 45 of the Evidence Act. The court also noted that while it is prudent for police officers to ensure that the witness fully understands the process and for them to request confirmation from the translator, the absence of the translator's testimony does not automatically render the identification inadmissible. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The court did not issue specific final orders as the appeal was dismissed, but it reinforced the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for visual identification evidence and provided clarity on the admissibility of such evidence when the statutory requirements are not strictly followed due to circumstances beyond the control of the prosecution.