R v Geeves; R v Geeves

[2024] NSWSC 815

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Geeves; R v Geeves [2024] NSWSC 815
Hearing dates:	21 and 24 June 2024
Date of orders:	24 June 2024
Decision date:	02 July 2024
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Lonergan J
Decision:	Evidence allowed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial – application to adduce evidence (in various forms) regarding the 1997/1998 pregnancy and early 1998 termination of pregnancy – evidence relevant
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Robert Samuel Geeves (Accused) Anne Margaret Geeves (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: P.W. Kerr (Crown) P Coady (Robert Samuel Geeves) M.P. King (Anne Margaret Geeves) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Robert Samuel Geeves) Longman Hill Solicitors (Anne Margaret Geeves)
File Number(s):	2022/00128350 2022/00128454
Publication restriction:	Section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) applies to protect the identity of Amber Haigh’s child. Any publication of that child’s name or anything that might identify that child is prohibited.

JUDGMENT

1. The Crown indicated an intention to lead evidence from various witnesses and tender documents regarding the fact that in early 1998, Amber Haigh underwent a termination of pregnancy. The pregnancy was to Amber’s third cousin Paul Harding. Amber’s family were concerned that, amongst other things, the baby may have congenital abnormalities due to this fact.

2. General objection is taken on the part of both accused to any evidence of the pregnancy and termination of pregnancy on the basis of relevance.

3. Both accused have pleaded not guilty to the murder of Amber who was last seen in early June 2002. Amber had lived with the accused couple off and on over the previous year or two. She had delivered a baby, [REDACTED], on [REDACTED], the father of whom was Robert Geeves, the male accused.

4. Evidence to be led by Amber’s GP, Dr Sevier, indicates that on assessment of Amber in 2001, he concluded that Amber had the intellectual maturity of a 13- year-old rather than her chronological age, which was then 18.

5. Amber had a complex upbringing and was taken into care at a very early age. She had intermittent contact with her parents, who separated when she was two years old and mainly lived with other relatives, including a great aunt, Stella Nealon, with whom she was living when the 1997/1998 pregnancy occurred.

6. A significant aspect of the Crown case is that Amber, who was 19 years old at the time of her disappearance, would never have willingly left baby [REDACTED]. There will be evidence that [REDACTED] was wanted and much loved by Amber. Post-natal records show that although Amber’s level of knowledge of infant development was not sophisticated, she was managing, and was caring and loving with her baby boy.

7. The circumstances leading up to the termination of pregnancy in early 1998 are documented in the Young Community Health Centre records. Those records state that Amber told staff that she felt confused about whether to keep the pregnancy to Paul Harding or have a termination of that pregnancy. Young Community Health Centre records show that options were discussed with Amber, and that Amber also discussed the situation with her mother.

8. In a lengthy note made on 19 February 1998 in the Young Community Health Centre records, the attending staff member recorded that Amber was accompanied to that consultation by Anne Geeves.

9. The termination of pregnancy was carried out in Canberra in late February 1998. Amber was taken to Canberra for the termination by her great aunt Stella Nealon and Stella’s partner Raymond Harding.

10. Counsel for both accused, Mr Coady for Robert Geeves and Mr King for Anne Geeves, submitted that the evidence of this prior pregnancy and termination was irrelevant to any fact in issue in the proceedings.

Statutory provisions

11. Section 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (“the Act”) provides:

55   Relevant evidence

(1)  The evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding.

(2)  In particular, evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to—

(a)  the credibility of a witness, or

(b)  the admissibility of other evidence, or

(c)  a failure to adduce evidence.

12. Counsel for the accused argued that s 137 (and s 135) of the Act also apply and the evidence should be excluded on one or both of those bases. Section 137 of the Act provides as follows:

137   Exclusion of prejudicial evidence in criminal proceedings

In a criminal proceeding, the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.

13. Section 135 of the Act provides for a general discretion to exclude evidence in certain circumstances:

135   General discretion to exclude evidence

The court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might—

(a)  be unfairly prejudicial to a party, or

(b)  be misleading or confusing, or

(c)  cause or result in undue waste of time.

Submissions

14. Mr Coady provided written submissions arguing that there is very little or no evidence supporting any suspicious motive or interaction by Mr or Mrs Geeves with Amber at the time of this first pregnancy, and that if the Crown is relying on the evidence to show some kind of tendency to have a state of mind on the part of the accused persons, it would need to pass the threshold of tendency evidence under s 97(1)(b) of the Act. This requires the evidence to have significant probative value. Further, if admitted, the evidence is of low probative value and its probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial nature of the evidence.

15. Mr King adopted Mr Coady’s submissions.

16. The Crown Prosecutor provided written submissions arguing that the question of whether or not Amber voluntarily abandoned her baby [REDACTED] in June 2002 is a fact in issue in the proceedings. Amber’s pregnancy to Paul Harding, and decision to terminate that pregnancy in early 1998, is relevant because there is evidence that she wanted to continue that pregnancy “to have something to love”. She delayed telling her parents. She wanted to be a mother.

17. The Young Community Health Centre records are important. In an entry made on 19 February 1998, the pregnancy and option for termination were discussed, including a note that Amber felt confused about what to do.

18. There is evidence in Stella Nealon’s 25 June 2002 statement, and the 11 July 2002 statement of Raymond Harding, that Amber was not sure that she wanted to terminate the 1997/1998 pregnancy.

19. The Crown Prosecutor referred to some other perhaps less persuasive evidence as to Amber wanting to have a baby and that she was feeling some consternation associated with the termination. This comprised the recollections of a neighbour, Janice Martin, and an undated purported “suicide letter”. I place no weight on these two pieces of potential evidence, as their reference points and the timing at which the events referred to involving them remains unclear.

20. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the 1997/1998 pregnancy shows that Amber was able to fall pregnant which would have been of interest to Robert and Anne Geeves. The Crown case is that the Geeves used Amber as a surrogate mother and then disposed of her when she was no longer of use. Robert and Anne wanted to have more children, but Anne was unable to do so. There is evidence, yet to be tendered but referred to in the Crown case statement, that Anne suffered a number of miscarriages and in 1994, a stillbirth of baby Emma. Evidence from their son Robbie at the inquest also confirmed that Anne wanted to have more children. There is also evidence available that Anne used the term “surrogate” mother in reference to Amber once [REDACTED] was born.

Decision

21. The evidence about the 1997/1998 pregnancy and termination of that pregnancy is relevant. That Amber was able to fall pregnant and the fact that this was known to the Geeves is relevant. That she discussed with the professional people at the Young Community Health Centre the pros and cons of a termination of pregnancy and was informed of options is an integral part of the evidence surrounding this pregnancy and its termination. The fact that Amber was given this information and support is relevant to the issue of whether she later wanted to go ahead and carry baby [REDACTED] to full term, given she knew she had a choice.

22. The 1998 pregnancy and termination demonstrated that Amber knew how to obtain a termination of pregnancy if she did not want to go ahead with the pregnancy to Robert Geeves, and so tends to shed light on the question of [REDACTED] being a wanted baby and so a baby whom Amber would not leave.

23. The admission of the evidence about the pregnancy to Paul Harding and termination of that pregnancy in early 1998 does not cause a danger of unfair prejudice to a party. Nor is it misleading or confusing or apt to cause an undue waste of time. It has reasonably significant probative value: s 135.

24. Nor is the probative value of this evidence so low that it is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendants: s 137.

**********

Decision last updated: 23 September 2024