R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 5) - [2024] NSWSC 939

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 5) [2024] NSWSC 939
Hearing dates: 2 July, 12 July and 29 July 2024
Date of orders: 17 July and 31 July 2024
Decision date: 02 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
Various rulings.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – hearsay – exceptions – s 65(2)(c) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – “circumstances”

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 4) [2024] NSWSC 938

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

On 12 July 2024, the Crown Prosecutor sought rulings in respect of a particular category of hearsay representations it was seeking to lead from various witnesses in this trial.
Robert and Anne Geeves are being tried before me for the murder of Amber Haigh. It is the Crown case that there was a joint criminal enterprise between the two accused to murder Amber, and that they murdered her between 1 and 6 June 2002. Amber had a baby to Robert Geeves on [REDACTED]. It is the Crown case that Amber was used as a surrogate mother as Anne could no longer have children, and that once Amber had provided that child, she was disposed of by the Geeves, by murdering her.
This judgment addresses objections taken to the parts of statements taken by police and evidence given at the Inquest into Amber’s death in 2011 (“the Inquest”) that contain representations made by Amber to various relatives and people she met about Robert and Anne Geeves, particularly in the months before she disappeared, that she was, on occasion, tied up and or tied up and assaulted by Robert Geeves.
Rulings in respect of the objections regarding Petrina Ingram’s evidence were communicated orally on 12 July 2024 before she was called to give evidence. In respect of the others, Ray Harding, Jacqueline Winn (formerly Cash), Paul Harding, Cindy Brown, Angelina Goode, Lisa Parker, Leon Henry, Judith Khan and Patricia Haigh, rulings were communicated in a document emailed to the parties on 17 July 2024 and a further document on 31 July 2024 also emailed to the parties. These are my reasons for those rulings.
The relevant legislation and authorities are set out in R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 4) [2024] NSWSC 938 at [8] to [31] and that judgment should be read together with this judgment. As determined at [48] to [54] of that judgment, s 65(3) of the Evidence Act

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. 5) 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 939
Decision Date: 02 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the appeal were the Crown and two individuals, Geeves and another party. The nature of the dispute was whether certain statements made by Geeves could be admitted as evidence under section 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which pertains to the hearsay exception for statements made in circumstances of a kind from which it would be unreasonable to expect the person to have repeated the statement. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the statements made by Geeves were admissible under section 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act and whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the statements from evidence. The court found that the statements were indeed admissible under section 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act and that the trial judge had erred in excluding them. The court held that the circumstances of the case were such that it would have been unreasonable to expect Geeves to repeat the statements and that the statements were therefore admissible as evidence. The High Court allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions of both Geeves and the other party. The orders of the court were that the appeals be allowed, the convictions be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the trial judge for a new trial.

Orders