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 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 1995 (NSW) ("the Act") has no role to play in providing a route by which evidence given at the Inquest held in 2011 about representations made by Amber to people prior to her death can be admitted into evidence. 6. Each representation and the circumstances in which they were made has to be examined individually to determine if any exception applies. The Crown relies on s 65(2)(c) in respect of each representation. I have not taken a compendious approach, or dealt with the objections in a wholescale way. The "subject matter" approach was taken only because the Crown argued, successfully, that in assessing the circumstances in which the representations were made by Amber about being "tied up" by Robert Geeves, the fact that she had made similar representations to others, was a circumstance that could be taken into account.