R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 7) - [2024] NSWSC 1168

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 7) [2024] NSWSC 1168
Hearing dates: 21, 24-27 June; 1-5, 8-12, 15-18, 22, 23, 29-31 July; 1-2, 12 and 14 August 2024
Date of orders: 16 September 2024
Decision date: 16 September 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
The accused are found not guilty.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – circumstantial case – where Amber Haigh disappeared in June 2002 – disappearance less than five months after the birth of her baby – where her body has never been found – whether circumstantial evidence establishes that she is dead, and that the death was caused by the accused – joint criminal enterprise – delay – forensic disadvantage – s 165B Evidence Act warnings – indispensable intermediate facts – circumstantial case

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dawson v R [2024] NSWCCA 98
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Hayward v R (2018) 97 NSWLR 852; [2018] NSWCCA 104
DS v R [2018] NSWCCA 195
R v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301; [2001] NSWCCA 260
The Queen v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55
TO v R [2017] NSWCCA 12

Category: Principal judgment
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. To protect that position, the child has been provided with a pseudonym.

JUDGMENT

Background

Amber Haigh was 19 and a half years old when she was last seen by people who knew her. Amber did not live with her parents or other relatives, but between a small bedsit in the town of Young, and a property called “Huntleigh” in Kingsvale, 15kms from Young at the home of Robert Geeves (“Robert”) and Anne Geeves (“Anne”), the two persons accused of her murder and whose guilt or innocence is for determination in this trial.
Robert is the father of Amber’s baby, born in January 2002. Robert and Anne went to Young police to report Amber missing on 19 June 2002, two weeks after Robert and Anne say they last saw her on the night of 5 June 2002, having driven her from their home to Campbelltown train station after Robert finished work that day. They assert that Amber wanted to visit her father, whom the evidence shows that she had been told by relatives was…

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. 7) 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 1168
Decision Date: 16 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court involved two appeals from convictions for murder. The appellants, Geeves and his wife, were found guilty of murdering a young woman, Amber Haigh, who disappeared in June 2002. The accused were convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, with the prosecution arguing that the delay in finding Amber's body, combined with other evidence, established that she was dead and that the accused were responsible for her death. The case hinged on whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The central legal issue was whether the circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct evidence, was sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This included assessing the strength of the circumstantial evidence, the applicability of warnings under s 165B of the Evidence Act, and the requirement for indispensable intermediate facts. The appellants argued that the delay in finding Amber's body, and the lack of direct evidence, meant that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of the crime. They further contended that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the warnings required by s 165B.

The High Court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the delay in finding Amber's body, while relevant, did not undermine the overall strength of the circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the indispensable intermediate facts were established, and that the warnings under s 165B did not preclude a finding of guilt based on the circumstantial evidence. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments and upheld the convictions, finding that the circumstantial evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The final orders of the Court were to affirm the convictions of the appellants for the murder of Amber Haigh. The Court rejected the appeals and confirmed the original findings of the trial judge. The decision highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, and the role of the warnings under s 165B in ensuring that such evidence is carefully assessed. The case underscores the principle that guilt can be established beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of direct evidence.

Orders