R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 4) - [2024] NSWSC 938

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 4) [2024] NSWSC 938
Hearing dates: 24 June, 25 June, 2 July, 8 July and 12 July 2024
Date of orders: 24 June, 25 June, 2 July, 8 July and 2 August 2024
Decision date: 02 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
Various rulings and exclusions. At [54] re Inquest evidence generally; [59], [60], [62], [64] and [66] re Stella Nealon; [68] re Ray Harding; [71] re Petrina Ingram; [74], [75] and [77] re Keli Wood; [79] and [81] re Jacqueline Cash; [85], [86] and [88] re Paul Harding; [90], [92], [94] and [95] re Patricia Haigh and [97]-[100] and [102] re Judith Khan.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – hearsay – exceptions – first hand hearsay exceptions – s 65(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – meaning of “circumstances” in s 65(2)(c) – s 66A contemporaneous representation about a person’s feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind – hearsay representations made by deceased – whether evidence should be admitted under exceptions to the hearsay rule – section 65(2)(c) – whether circumstances in which representations were made make it highly probable that the representation is reliable
EVIDENCE – hearsay exceptions – s 65(3) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – extracts of transcript from 2011 Inquest sought to be tendered by Crown – where Mr Geeves not represented by a lawyer at the Inquest – where Mr Geeves attended but asked no question of any witness – role of s 65(3) where evidence Mrs Geeves was too ill to attend Inquest and did not attend until last day – whether accused persons had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the persons who made the representations
EVIDENCE – discretion to exclude evidence – whether probative value of the evidence is outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – judge alone trial

Legislation Cited:
Coroners Act 2009 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 59, 62, 65, 66A, 135, 136, 137

Cases Cited:
Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd v CFMEU (Ruling No 2) [2015] VSC 459
In the matter of HIH Insurance Limited (In Liquidation) [2015] NSWSC 790
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
Puchalski v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 220
R v Al Batat & Ors (No 31) [2020] NSWSC 1556
R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 814
R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 3) [2024] NSWSC 862
R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 5) [2024] NSWSC 939
R v Macdonald; R v Edward Obeid; R v Moses Obeid (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1286
R v Omar [2022] NSWSC 371
R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 17) [2017] NSWSC 170
R v Ryan [2020] NSWSC 1394
R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75
R v Suteski (2002) 56 NSWLR 182; [2002] NSWCCA 509
Sio v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 47; [2016] HCA 32

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Robert Samuel Geeves (Accused)
Anne Margaret Geeves (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P.W. Kerr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 4) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 938
Decision Date: 02 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Crown and Mr Geeves, as well as Mr Geeves and another individual. The dispute centred around the admissibility of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial, specifically whether certain statements made by a deceased individual could be admitted under the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, sitting as a court of criminal appeal. The appeal was brought against Mr Geeves' conviction and sentence in relation to charges of murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder.
The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of section 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which pertains to first-hand hearsay exceptions. The court had to determine the meaning of "circumstances" in this context and whether the circumstances in which the representations were made made it highly probable that the representation is reliable. Additionally, the court examined section 65(3) of the Act, which addresses the admissibility of extracts from transcripts of previous proceedings, and whether the accused had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the persons who made the representations.
The court found that the representations made by the deceased individual were admissible under section 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act, as the circumstances in which they were made rendered it highly probable that the representation was reliable. The court also held that section 65(3) did not apply in this case, as the accused had not been provided with a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the persons who made the representations. The court ultimately upheld Mr Geeves' conviction and sentence, finding that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
No additional orders were made by the court in this case.

Orders