R v Geeves; R v Geeves

Supreme Court of NSW|2024-08-14|Before: Lonergan J

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 very ill and close to death in Mt Druitt Hospital.
No one has heard from or seen Amber since. Her body has never been found. There are no signs after 5 June 2002 that she is living. She has not accessed her bank account, social services, Medicare, or prescriptions for her life-protecting epilepsy medication. She was last reliably sighted by persons other than the accused on 2 June 2002 at her flat in Young in the company of Robert, and possibly seen by a cousin, Reuben Spicer, a day or two after that.

Essential elements joint criminal enterprise murder

The elements of the offence of murder are: 1. The accused committed a voluntary act; 2. That act caused the death of Amber Haigh; and 3. The act was done with an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm.
The Prosecution presented its case on the basis of "common purpose" or "joint criminal enterprise". Under this principle, it is not necessary to establish which member of the enterprise committed the act or acts causing death. Each member of the group is legally responsible for the acts of the other members who shared the common purpose. The Prosecution was not able to identify who did what act, or how or when any act or acts killed Amber. I am asked to infer that such an act or acts occurred based on Amber's disappearance and lack of signs of her life since a withdrawal from her bank account by ATM at Campbelltown at 8:49pm on 5 June 2002.
To establish the crime of murder by joint criminal enterprise, the following things must be established beyond reasonable doubt: 1. The existence of a joint criminal enterprise to murder Amber. 2. That each accused joined and was part of that criminal enterprise. 3. That each accused did not withdraw from the criminal enterprise. It is unnecessary to speak further about the legal requirements for withdrawal from such an enterprise because this is not an issue in the case. There is no evidence that either accused withdrew from the enterprise in any relevant sense; the case of each is that there was no enterprise in the first place. 4. Between them, the members of the group committed all the elements of murder.
As I have said, in a case based on a joint criminal enterprise, the Prosecution need not prove that each person accused of murder committed the act causing death. Both accused is responsible for the acts of the other member of the group, provided either the common purpose was to murder Amber, or the accused contemplated or adverted to the possibility that Amber would be killed by another member of the group, acting with an intention of killing her or inflicting upon her grievous bodily harm.

Burden and standard of proof

The burden of proof of the guilt of the accused is placed on the Prosecution. That burden is in respect of all elements of the offence charged. The burden of proof never shifts to the accused.
The accused are both presumed to be innocent and remain so presumed unless and until the Prosecution proves guilt for the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof does not require the Prosecution to prove every single fact or issue that arises in the evidence and is in dispute. Nor does it mean I must find in favour of the Prosecution in relation to every fact or issue that has arisen in the evidence. Nor does it mean I must attempt to resolve every apparent conflict that has arisen in the evidence. At the end of my consideration of the evidence, there may remain factual matters I am unable to resolve one way or the other. Whether that will matter will depend upon my assessment of the importance of such matters to what it is that the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt, which are the elements of the offence charged.
Having considered all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, if I am not satisfied that the Prosecution has discharged its burden of proof I must acquit the accused. If I am left unable to decide whether the Prosecution has discharged its burden of proof, even if I suspect the accused probably committed the offence charged or are more likely than not to have committed it, I must acquit the accused. If the Prosecution has discharged its burden of proof, the appropriate verdict is guilty.

Inferences

I may draw reasonable inferences from facts I find established. I must examine any possible inference to ensure it is a justifiable inference and I must not draw an inference from the direct evidence unless it is a rational inference in all of the circumstances.

AVL

Several witnesses gave evidence by audio-visual link from a location remote from the courtroom. This is common practice. I must not draw any inference adverse to the accused and must not accord evidence given this way any greater or lesser weight simply because this practice was followed.

Fact-finding

The facts I find must be based on the evidence adduced in the trial. The evidence consists of the answers to the questions asked of each witness in court and the evidence contained in the exhibits.
In finding the facts, I do not look at each piece of evidence in isolation. Other evidence might confirm, explain and/or contradict the evidence of a witness.
It is for me to decide what weight should be given to the evidence, weight meaning the extent to which the evidence helps me to determine the facts in dispute.
I must evaluate the evidence in a commonsense way having regard to my understanding of people and human nature. I must bring an open and unbiased mind and act clinically and dispassionately, without allowing sympathy and/or prejudice to play any role in the decision-making process.
I must not act on the basis of media reporting and/or public opinion.

Assessment of witnesses

I may believe the whole of what a witness says, I may disbelieve the whole of what a witness says, or I may believe one part and disbelieve another part of a witness' evidence if I consider it worthy of acceptance.
Each witness has given evidence about things they said they remembered. How well a person might remember something depends upon many different factors, including that person's capacity to lay down an accurate memory in the first place, their capacity to retain that memory and its associated detail over time and their capacity to recall the memory and articulate it in words, whether that be in a statement or in giving evidence.
It was a feature of this trial, given the delay in the prosecution, that many witnesses gave statements to police in 2002 and 2003 and did not now remember or remember accurately things that were included in their statement given all those years ago and needed to be assisted by processes available under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to confirm, or not, that more contemporaneous account. Where the making of the previous statement was not admitted, or where the truth of the statement was denied, this evidence is generally not admissible to prove the fact contained in the out of court statement.
Where hearsay evidence is admitted for a hearsay purpose, that is to prove the truth of the hearsay statement, a jury is generally warned that hearsay evidence may be unreliable (s 165 Evidence Act). A number of witnesses recounted things Amber said and the Crown led that evidence of those assertions by Amber for a hearsay purpose. I will specifically direct myself about the implications of s 165 in that context later in this judgment.
The subject matter of an event is also a relevant factor to memory. Some events themselves are of little or no consequence and any memory is retained temporarily and then gone. Other events are of greater importance or consequence such that a person might remember them for a relatively long time, although perhaps over time aspects of the detail of the memory, or the parts the person might consider to be of no particular consequence, might fade.
All of these common sense factors might impact what someone might be able to remember of an event, or how clearly they might remember it. Here, there is the added factor that in addition to there being 22 years since the events occurred, there has been substantial media comment and local speculation about what occurred. Some witnesses referred to these matters directly affecting and shaping their testimony, others denied that was a factor.
What I must decide in relation to the evidence of each witness is whether I consider their evidence to be sufficiently reliable such that I can act upon it.
Reliability depends upon two quite different but overlapping factors. One factor is the witness' honesty. The other factor is the witness' accuracy.
There are many factors that can have a bearing upon a witness' honesty. In considering the question of honesty, I might consider the impression the witness made upon me. Demeanour and impression are important and valid factors to take into account.
Did a particular witness impress me as someone doing their best to be truthful or did the witness impress me as someone deliberately trying to deceive me? Did the witness appear evasive or prone to exaggeration or embellishment? Did the witness demonstrate an ability to listen to the question and answer what he or she understood was asked? Did the witness concede that he or she has lied or been mistaken in their evidence?
Although demeanour and impression are factors I am entitled to take into account, I must bear in mind that witnesses can be affected by the stress and anxiety of giving evidence in legal proceedings. A witness might be anxious, worried, or embarrassed. Demeanour and impression alone do not determine the honesty, or accuracy, of the witness' evidence.
I am mindful of the fact that "scientific research that has cast doubt on the ability of judges (or anyone else) to tell truth from falsehood accurately on the basis of such appearances": Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 at [31]. Where possible I will look to objectively established facts, contemporaneous material and apparent logic, (or otherwise), of events.
If I conclude that a particular witness was doing his or her best to be honest, I will need to move to the second aspect of reliability, which relates to accuracy. A witness may be honest and accurate or honest but completely, or partly, inaccurate or mistaken.
To determine how accurate the evidence of a witness is, I may look to a number of factors. How carefully did the witness observe the event or matter about which they gave evidence? Was the witness calm and composed at the time of the event, or affected by emotion such as stress, panic, fear or by an intoxicating substance such as alcohol, that might have impacted their powers of observation and/or the laying down of an accurate memory?
How important to the witness were the surrounding details of an event such that the witness focussed on committing to memory all aspects of the event as opposed to what the witness perceived to be significant parts of the event?
Has the witness provided a consistent or inconsistent account of all or part of the event? A consistent account may be the product of a truthful account or a product of a dishonest account rehearsed to the point of consistency. An inconsistent account may be the product of deliberate lies being told or a reflection of the fact that human memory does not work like a camera or video recorder with perfect recall, or reflect the fact that the person may have forgotten details at the time of one recall of the event but not another or chosen to withhold all or some details of the event at one time but not at another time for personal reasons.
Is there evidence capable of giving rise to an inference of suggestibility, or contamination, such as to make the evidence or parts of the evidence of a witness unreliable?
Was there a relationship between a witness and any other person involved in the proceedings that might have influenced the witness' evidence, either deliberately or inadvertently? The evidence of a person with a relationship to someone involved in the proceedings may mean the truth has been distorted or may mean that despite the relationship, the witness is nevertheless giving honest evidence.

The accused did not give evidence

Both accused were arrested and charged with murder on 4 May 2022. Both have provided statements in the form of ERISPs ("Electronically Recorded Interview of a Suspected Person") on 25 June and 18 July 2002. In the 18 July 2002 interviews, each were warned at the beginning that police were making inquiries into the disappearance of Amber and they did not have to say or do anything if they did not want to, but that the questions and answers would be recorded, and those recordings could be used in court. Such a warning was not given to either accused on 25 June 2002, where the premise stated by one of the interviewing officers was that this was an "electronic statement". There was, however, no objection taken to the ERISPs being played, and it is the defence position that the account given by both Anne and Robert in those interviews of what occurred on 5 June 2002 provides an account consistent with their innocence.
Neither accused person has given evidence at this trial - nor is there any requirement or obligation for them to do so. The Prosecution bears the burden of satisfying me beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are guilty of the offence charged. There is no obligation on the accused to give or call evidence in the trial. Both accused persons are presumed to be innocent, unless and until I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence led by the Prosecution that they are guilty of the offence charged. It follows that the accused are both entitled to say nothing and require the Prosecution to prove guilt to the high standard required.
I cannot use the accuseds' decision not to give evidence in any way at all during the course of my deliberations. It cannot be used as strengthening the Prosecution case or in assisting the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I must not speculate about what might have been said had either or both of the accused elected to give evidence.

The evidence

The hearing spanned 28 sitting days in Wagga Wagga, commencing on 21 June 2024 and finishing on 14 August 2024. The Court heard oral evidence from 44 witnesses. The statements of 27 others were tendered. Many documents were tendered, some of which focussed on demonstrating that there have been no signs of life of Amber since 5 June 2002. She has not accessed Medicare, social services such as Centrelink upon which she was reliant, prescriptions for her epilepsy medication or engaged in any of the usual indications of life.
Witnesses comprised members of Amber's family: her mother Rosalind Wright, great-aunt Stella Nealon, great-uncle Raymond Harding, uncle Michael Haigh and his partner Tracey Ford, aunt Jacqueline Cash, (now Winn), and cousin Paul Harding. Statements were tendered from deceased family members: Amber's father Geoffrey Haigh, her grandmother Judith Khan, aunt Patricia Haigh, cousin Reuben Spicer and Jacqui's husband Stephen Cash.
There was evidence from neighbours Amber befriended when she moved into a flat in Clarke Street, Young in October 2001 - Daphne and Leon Henry, Lisa Parker, Angelina Goode (now Fitzgibbons), Cindy Brown, Richard Allbutt - the real estate agent Janice Broderick, a friend Mavis Yardley, (now Forrester), and a travel agent in Young, Helen Mackie, who sold Amber train tickets for travel.
There was evidence from people Amber met whom she is alleged to have told certain things - counselling and nursing staff at the Young Community Health Centre and QEII, an organisation in Canberra that helped her with mothercraft skills - as well as investigating police, a solicitor involved in making a Will for Amber and his secretary/receptionist and various people connected with the accused, including their son, Robbie, and daughter-in-law.

Who is Amber Haigh and what did we learn about her from the evidence

To determine relevant facts in this trial, given the way the Crown has articulated its case about the asserted motive to kill Amber, it is essential to understand the evidence that sheds light on those matters. This requires, as a logical starting point, an understanding of Amber and what the evidence showed about her life and movements in the period leading up to her disappearance.
Amber was born in November 1982 in Liverpool, New South Wales to Rosalind Wright, ("Rosalind"), and Geoffrey Haigh ("Geoffrey"). Her parents separated when she was two years old. Although no medical records were tendered to confirm this, her family understands that Amber had her first fit around the time of her immunisations at age three and that she would, according to her grandmother Judith Khan, stop breathing and require medical attention when fitting. Rosalind said that Amber was put on the drug Epilim to control her epilepsy and that the doctor told her she would be on that medication every day for the rest of her life.
Rosalind said that Geoffrey had a problem with alcohol and was violent. [2] Stella Nealon said he used to "kick her round the yard". Amber went back and forwards between her mother and her father until she was about 12 years old. Rosalind did not always know where Geoffrey was living. He would just come and "take off" with the children. [3] Amber gave an account to a social worker in 2001 of being sexually abused more than once as a child. [4]
At about 12 years old, Amber was sent to live with an aunt in Deception Bay, Queensland.
Rosalind said that Amber was in the care of DoCS for a period. She was not sure for how long. When she was with her mother, Amber went to school: first Canley Heights Public, then Fairfield West and then Doonside Technology. She described that Amber "… took a bit more longer to learn on the things", [5] but that Amber could read and write. Her mother could not recall if Amber was ever assessed for an intellectual impairment, saying that she was "seeing a specialist and some doctors and that" but she could not recall when. [6] She described this as being about "having her fits and stuff like that". [7] Rosalind described Amber as kind-hearted, helpful, happy and bubbly; a follower not a leader. [8]
Amber came back to her mother for a period and then was sent away again to live with her great-aunt, Stella Nealon, ("Stella"), in Kingsvale. By this time, Amber was about 14 or 15 years old and so it seems this was sometime between late 1996 and 1997.
No evidence was led by the Crown from any school Amber attended or any expert assessment made of her intellectual capacity, and it seems that Amber did not attend school whilst she lived in Kingsvale, though she may have attended some TAFE classes in Young.
Stella was asked to have Amber on the basis that she might like to do some fruit picking. Stella lived not far from the Geeves in Kingsvale, with her partner Raymond Harding ("Ray") and Ray's grandson, Paul Harding ("Paul"). Paul was Amber's second (or third) cousin.
While Amber was living with Stella, she struck up a relationship with Paul. He was about four years older than Amber. She became pregnant to him in late 1997.
By 19 February 1998, the pregnancy was discovered, (thought to be about 10 weeks), and Amber was encouraged by Stella and Paul's mother, Jacqueline Cash, Amber's aunt, ("Jacqui"), to terminate the pregnancy. All of this caused family drama to which I will return. I have no doubt at all that Amber was pressured by Stella, Jacqui and her mother Rosalind to terminate the pregnancy. I believe they held genuine concerns, given the consanguinity situation and the risk of the child having a birth defect. Paul was deaf and was thought by Stella at least to perhaps have an intellectual impairment as well. Jacqui admitted in cross-examination that she was mindful that if the pregnancy became known to police, it may expose Paul to prosecution given that Amber had just turned 15 at the time she became pregnant to him. Stella denied that was a concern, and denied she had told Paul and Amber to keep the pregnancy quiet. [9] I do not accept Stella's denials.
Amber received advice and support from the Young Community Health Centre ("YCHC") having been taken there by Anne after, or as part of, a referral there from a TAFE teacher. [10] The note made at the time, without agenda or pre-conceived ideas about Amber's situation, provides important background insights to Amber's circumstances at that time. It reads: "Amber spoke to me by phone from Young Community Health today. She is 10 weeks pregnant to a 19 year old second cousin who has a disability. She does not want to disclose the identity of this boy. Amber was in the presence of Ann Geeves whilst we talked. Amber was very confused about the decision to follow through the abortion or to maintain the pregnancy. Her aunt was pressuring her to have the abortion. We discussed her options with Amber saying she felt she couldn't have an abortion because she felt it was wrong however worried about the possible disabilities of the unborn child. We also discussed the procedure for abortion and what she could expect. I also explained that in law she had a legal right to a say in her own health at 14 (in NSW) and that the abortion centre will not carry out the abortion if she is not sure of going ahead. At my suggestion she rang her mum in Sydney to discuss the situation with her. Amber came back at 5pm after speaking to her mum by phone. She said her mum had thought it best if she proceed with the termination. Amber felt that she should do this "for her mum". We then discussed if she was safe to return to the aunts house until next Tuesday. After some ambiguity Amber decided that she could do this but would move to her friends (ANN GEEVES) if she needed time out. Her aunt would not support her contacting community health. Amber will return to her mum in Sydney next Thursday after the appoint in A.C.T. for termination. DOC's have not been informed at this stage as we have no address or identity however I have left Amber to think about this situation further down the track. Her friend ANN has stated that other incidences have be known with this young man. PLAN Little to be done at this stage except have it open for Amber to come in if she has anything further to discuss. Pamphlet "Pregnancy choices" given to Amber's friend Ann for her to read."
Stella gave evidence that she spoke to Amber's mother about the pregnancy and that they "agreed" Amber would have to terminate the pregnancy. [11] Stella said Amber initially said "no", but later agreed. Stella was embarrassed that Paul and Amber had this relationship under her roof, but denied pressuring Amber to have the termination. [12] When it was put to her in cross-examination by counsel for Anne, Mr King, that she put some pressure on Amber to have the termination, Stella replied: "No, no, no. That was her mother and I said - because I said, "I'm sorry love, because I can't" - I said, "I can't stop your mother from doing it". I do not believe this evidence. The YCHC record indicated that Stella had already made the arrangements for the termination before Amber was encouraged by staff at the YCHC to talk to her mother. I have no doubt Stella and Jacqui, a mother and daughter who spent a lot of time together according to the evidence, both wanted this pregnancy gone. No doubt Rosalind shared that view as well. I have concluded that Stella, (and other family members), pressured Amber to have the abortion and that ultimately Amber was persuaded that it was "for the best".
Paul gave evidence that Stella, Ray and Jacqui were all unhappy with him for getting Amber pregnant. Jacqui said that she was told by Stella about the pregnancy. Jacqui was worried that Paul would get into trouble. [13] She was distressed by the information because she was worried the baby would have physical or mental disabilities given that Paul and Amber were related. She acknowledged in cross-examination that she knew at that time that the pregnancy may cause legal difficulties and affect Paul's life, given Amber was underage, but rather truculently to Mr Coady in cross-examination repeatedly insisted that Paul was 17 at the time he made Amber pregnant, which was clearly untrue. [14]
Detective Inspector Keith Price (then SC Price) had become involved because he received a callout from a teacher at Young TAFE on 19 February 1998 concerned for Amber's welfare. Amber told DI Price that she was fearful of returning to her aunt's place. Police obtained a history from Anne, who told police that Amber was pregnant to her cousin and that she, (Anne), understood an appointment for an abortion had already been arranged in Canberra and that Amber had been warned not to disclose her pregnancy to anyone. DI Price noted that a TAFE teacher had arranged for Amber to see the counsellor at YCHC. [15] Police took Amber into their care and DoCS issued a removal and replacement order to facilitate this.
A few days later Sgt Keith Giddings returned Amber to Stella's home. [16] Stella's evidence about this time was, in my view, deliberately vague. She said that she did not remember being asked by Amber's DoCS worker whether she pressured Amber to have an abortion. She does not remember getting frustrated talking to Amber about the abortion, (although acknowledged that she called her a "silly girl"), and does not remember DoCS being worried that Paul was still living in the house. [17]
In Stella's mind, this exposure to the authorities was all the fault of Robert Geeves, because "he" had taken her to the authorities and so DoCS became involved. [18] Jacqui recalled that Stella, Ray and/or Rosalind told her that the Geeves were "interfering" with their relationship with Amber. Jacqui also formed the opinion that the Geeves were "trying to take Amber's baby", but the basis for this belief was not stated. Jacqui said she probably talked to Amber at this time and told her to be aware of and careful around the Geeves, as they might take her baby.
Jacqui said that she did not speak to Amber about the termination, (she was then living in Mt Isa), but she knew that Stella, Ray and Rosalind spoke to her about it. She later heard the termination had taken place. Paul was made to pay for the procedure. Stella and Ray drove Amber to Canberra to have the termination.
In early 1998, Amber became friends with Robbie Geeves, the son of Robert and Anne Geeves. He was the same age as her. Amber and he had a relationship of boyfriend/girlfriend, but it was not a sexual relationship by Robbie's account. [19]
In early 1999, Amber was sent to Mt Isa to live with Jacqui in a caravan. Robbie and Amber stayed in touch by phone. Their relationship fizzled out. At some point, Amber learned that Robbie was seeing another girl and she was upset about that according to Jacqui.
Paul occasionally visited at Mt Isa but according to Jacqui did not speak to Amber very much and that would upset Amber because Amber liked Paul. Jacqui admitted that she would get angry with Amber being attached to Paul, because they were cousins. Amber "started to cause trouble" not long after arriving, telling people in the caravan park that she had had sex with Paul. Jacqui wanted Stella to send Amber home to stop this happening. [20]
In late 1999, while living in the caravan in Mt Isa, there was a disagreement between Jacqui and Amber which involved the calling of police. Jacqui is alleged to have put her hands around Amber's neck. In her evidence Jacqui denied exerting pressure to Amber's neck, although she acknowledged Amber was "a bit scared" but "just st[ood] there". Stella underplayed this incident as well, agreeing that it was "… a bit of a problem. She did give her a shake yes, she did, but not around the throat" [21] , indicating in the witness box hands holding the front of her cardigan around chest height, up near the neck, but not actually around the throat. Mr King took Jacqui to her statement made in 2002, in which Jacqui acknowledged she had "… got really angry with Amber and once I put my hands around her throat. The police came out, however, nothing came of it". [22]
I do not believe that Jacqui did not exert pressure on Amber's neck. I believe she did. So much is evident from the more candid description "I put my hand around her throat". I believe that Jacqui was utterly furious with Amber disclosing family business, particularly as it involved an allegation of criminal behaviour on the part of her son. It appears that someone else in the vicinity was sufficiently concerned to call the police to the scene.
Amber was sent to live with other people in the caravan park for a few days and then sent further away, back to Kingsvale all the way from Mt Isa on her own, a trip that took some days and nights on a bus. [23] Sent away yet again, a vulnerable young girl with cognitive difficulties, by people whom she trusted to love and support her, simply because she told the truth about something that should not have happened to her, at the hands of another adult relative; truth-telling for which she was further assaulted and abused.
It appears that Amber lived with Stella and Ray through some of 1999 and early 2000. Stella said in her evidence that Amber paid $150.00 per fortnight for board and that Amber would take money out of the bank and give it to her while out shopping and Stella used it to pay for food. [24] It is unclear for what time period this arrangement was in place. Ray said that Amber had a mobile phone and was "always on the phone", ringing her father and her mother, and that Robert called her "all the time". I was not persuaded Ray was a reliable witness in his recount of what occurred. I consider his take on things to be informed by whatever Stella was perpetuating as fact.
Amber's grandmother, Judith Khan is now deceased and although she provided a statement in May 2003, only very limited parts of it made their way into evidence. Ms Khan also gave evidence at the 2011 Inquest into Amber's disappearance. Only a few lines from that evidence were tendered. None of this addressed what was happening with Amber in 2000, or Ms Khan's understanding of where Amber was living.
In June 2000, according to Robbie, there was talk at his home of Amber moving into the Geeves house. He told his parents that he did not want that to occur, but his mother told him that was what was happening. [25] A few weeks later, Robbie moved out to live with his girlfriend, Natasha Cross. He didn't think it was appropriate that he stay there with his "ex-girlfriend" moving in. [26]
It remained unclear on the evidence when exactly Amber moved in with the Geeves or how steady or comfortable that arrangement ever was for her. She had such limited options. She was dependent on welfare payments. She needed kindness and support. Everywhere she went, from the time she was a baby, there were issues and problems, or it was made clear that she was not wanted, or someone or other did not want her to be there. She was physically attacked, abused and made to feel unsafe or unwanted, or both, by members of her own family. How terrible that must have felt for a vulnerable, loving young woman carrying a life-threatening illness, the deep scars of a jagged, abusive childhood and cognitive and processing difficulties. Amber told a counsellor in Young in 2001 that she did not know what love was. There was little sign, in the sea of evidence led in this case, that Amber was ever shown the unconditional love and support she needed and deserved.
Police records tendered show that on 8 August 2000 Amber was present at Stella's house and there was a physical fight between her and Jacqui. Jacqui recounted this in her evidence: that she was trying to advise Amber to stay away from the Geeves, and Amber pushed a portable TV into Jacqui's stomach, allegedly causing Jacqui to lose her footing and that Jacqui then slapped Amber with an open palm "as a reflex". [27] The police record says that it was in fact a punch with a closed fist. Sgt Giddings recorded in his notebook that there were two punches - one to Amber's mouth and another to her right eye near her cheek. Jacqui said in cross-examination that she does not remember punching Amber, but she "could have". She recalls Amber being upset and staying in her room. Police records indicate that it was Amber who called the police. Senior Constable Alexander Illes applied for an AVO against Jacqui on behalf of Amber. [28] The next day, Amber applied to retract her statement and later to have the AVO removed.
Stella claimed to remember little about this. She said she could not remember Jacqui punching Amber, but thinks Jacqui grabbed Amber's arm and shook her. Stella claimed that "it wasn't a big fight and she [Amber] wasn't upset". [29] However, it was difficult to be sure whether Stella was talking about the same event, or some other time when Jacqui assaulted Amber. A police report filed at that time and about which SC IIles gave evidence, referred to an "ongoing feud" involving "threats and violence". [30]
Ray Harding gave evidence that he recalled Amber telling him that Jacqui had "scruffed" her, that is - grabbed her around the top of her clothing near her neck, during an argument. He did not recall how long that was before Amber moved out. This may or may not be a reference to the event on 8 August 2000. In any event, I have concluded that the police report is more likely to be reliable. Whether it was a slap or a punch is probably not crucial. It should not have occurred and would have made Amber feel unsafe. There is a suggestion in the evidence that Amber went to the Geeves' after this.
The ADVO taken out by SC Illes against Jacqui on behalf of Amber, was not a non-association order - just that Jacqui was not to harass or attack Amber. The ADVO was not contested by Jacqui, who appeared on 25 August 2000 at Young Local Court where the order was made. In October 2000, Amber made a formal application to revoke the order and it was revoked in November 2000.
A school friend of Amber's, Charles Cutajar, recalled going out with Amber for a few months some time in 2000 while Amber was living with her mother in Rooty Hill. Rosalind gave evidence that Amber was at her house about November 2000 for a while until Robert came and collected her. This was the last time she saw her daughter. Ray's understanding was that Amber had an argument with her mother and phoned Robert to pick her up. That may or may not be right, but there is no suggestion Rosalind wanted to keep Amber there with her. Rosalind gave evidence that she helped Amber get her things ready to leave while Robert waited and talked to her husband. She thought Robert was simply providing transport for Amber. [31]
I have concluded that Robert took Amber to Huntleigh to live at this time, if she wasn't already living there before, and that this was her main residence until October 2001, when the apartment at Clarke Street was rented.
Robert started a sexual relationship with Amber at some point in 2001, if not before. He said in his ERISP on 25 June 2002 that it began in "probably … April" and "a number of months after she was living with us"; Robert said in that ERISP that Amber moved in around her 18th birthday. Robbie gave evidence that his understanding was that Amber moved in with the Geeves in June 2000, and soon after he moved out to live with his girlfriend. Because Robbie took a break from speaking with his parents at this time, I do not think Robbie understood the complexities of Amber's situation, nor did he know she was coming and going between a number of places in a quest to find somewhere that was secure and stable and where she was at least peacefully tolerated, if not actually wanted.
Dr Sevier, a general practitioner at Young District Medical Centre, first saw Amber in December 2000. He saw her a number of times for general things, including prescription of Epilim, before managing part of the antenatal care of her pregnancy with baby Ben.
Shortly before 3 May 2001, probably on the 2nd, Amber was referred by Dr Sevier to the YCHC for supportive therapy. Limited medical records were obtained from Dr Sevier's medical practice comprising only computer records of dates of consultations and prescriptions provided to Amber and details of some investigations that were ordered. These included a referral for an ultrasound of her pregnancy in July 2001 and prescriptions for Epilim and folic acid. There were no handwritten notes available that Dr Sevier said in his evidence he would have made at the time of the consultations. The records provided, however, did indicate that Dr Sevier saw Amber for 14 consultations between May 2001 and early 2002.
Dr Sevier gave evidence that he remembered Amber and formed the view that Amber was functioning intellectually or cognitively at the level of a person perhaps aged 12 or 13 years. [32] Although he did not obtain a formal assessment, he based this view on his experience as a GP, and her presentation, demeanour, speech and her ability to understand advice. He thought that she probably understood the instructions and advice, but was perhaps not always able to recognise the significance of her own behaviour and its consequences. He thought she would need sheltered employment and would be better under the care of responsible adults.
I should interpolate here that regardless of Dr Sevier's perceptions and those of other professional and lay people that Amber presented as someone less mature and less cognitively able than her chronological age, there was no evidence that her cognitive functioning was such that she was incapable of providing consent to sexual activity. To the extent any closing submission by the Crown suggested the contrary, I reject it.
That Amber seemed not able to recognise the significance of her own behaviour and its consequences is a different matter, and is a pervasive consideration, particularly when assessing the truth of what Amber told people. Amber seems to have said strange and silly things for effect or attention - for example, with no basis at all, telling a young and pregnant friend (Angelina Goode, now Fitzgibbons), that she had "lost" her baby, causing that young woman distress, despite it being untrue and Angelina remaining obviously pregnant. It does lead me to some disquiet as to whether Amber said other things to other people for attention or effect. She was a young woman with little agency in her life, pushed around, literally, by a family that was supposed to be helping and protecting her, and with little to do with her time until she had Ben.
The notes made by staff of the YCHC between May 2001 and when Amber was last seen there on 29 May 2002, provide an important anchor of fact for the trial. [33] This is not only because the notes provide a contemporaneous chronology of what Amber told them was happening in her life and how she was feeling, (though of course this was limited to what Amber chose to tell them), but also because those people were trained to notice things about the people they saw, to record relevant matters, and to form opinions about what assistance the people they saw required.
Each practitioner made contemporaneous notes when they met with Amber. Those notes were tendered. They were detailed. Each practitioner gave evidence about what they wrote and their professional interactions with Amber. All clearly held concern for Amber and her complex social situation. All of the staff who met with Amber during 2001 maintained an objective yet concerned professional attitude. That changed with the involvement of the early childhood nurse, Susan Powell, in January 2002 and spread to Heather Ritchie, the manager at YCHC, influenced as she was by Ms Powell's account of circumstances, where unfortunately fact became mixed with rumour, exaggeration and speculation.
On 11 May 2001, Amber had a consultation at YCHC with Douglas James, (Bachelor of Social Work, Monash), a social worker of some years' experience. His role was as a generalist counsellor. Amber told him of "funny/confused dreams" she had been having, and her history of sexual abuse as a child, that her father beat her, and that she did not think that she knew "what love is". She said that she was happy living with Anne and Robert, and that they treated her well. Mr James concluded that she was "childlike" and needed support, and arranged to see her in two weeks.
In his evidence, Mr James explained that Amber presented as innocent and naïve, with difficulty understanding complex or adult concepts. She had difficulty managing thoughts and emotions and would put her hands over her mouth and turned from side to side when she was talking, as a much younger person would. He was concerned about her situation: being intellectually delayed and having a relationship with a much older man. At this time Robert Geeves was over 40 years old and Amber was 18.
Amber missed the follow up meeting that Mr James had arranged for 23 May 2001, but attended on 4 June 2001. She "sheepishly" revealed to Mr James an affair with her "landlord", Robert. She described going somewhere with him and drinking a quantity of alcohol and that he had told her that he had talked to his wife and said that it was "ok to do it because then we can be a real family". She described the event to Mr James using the term "we made love". She told Mr James that she was concerned that she would be "kicked out" if it was found she was pregnant.
Mr James referred her for pregnancy testing, which was positive. He described Amber as appearing "a little unsettled" after this. He discussed strategies to manage stress and made an appointment for 18 June 2001.
Catherine Kerr, a women's health nurse of over 20 years experience at that time, was the nurse with whom Amber consulted that day in the Women's Health Clinic. Amber told her it would be "OK" to be pregnant, and that she would not have a termination of pregnancy, and that she was "having counselling at present for past TOP [termination of pregnancy]". She stated that she "may have a problem with the father of the baby � he is in a relationship already".
Amber attended the YCHC again on 18 June 2001. She told Mr James that she wanted to continue the pregnancy and "will tell Anne (Robert's wife) soon". Coping strategies were discussed and a referral was made for antenatal classes.
Amber also attended the Women's Health Clinic on 18 June 2001 and again was seen by Cathy Kerr. Ms Kerr thought Amber was "childlike", acting and speaking like somebody of early teens, rather than an 18 or 19 year-old. They discussed the importance of regular antenatal care. A pregnancy care booklet was given to Amber, but Ms Kerr's note records that Amber stated that she could not take it home because "her partners wife might find it".
Ms Kerr gave evidence that she wanted Amber to attend a particular one-on-one parenthood class with Sue Lanham who would see people who might not fit well in a group session, to describe what was going to happen with the labour, delivery and postnatal period. In her evidence at trial, she said that her recollection was that Amber mentioned that she could not read or write very well and that is why she declined to take the NSW Health booklet. This is not what was recorded by Ms Kerr in her notes she made at the time. I consider the notes she made at the time to be more reliable in terms of what Amber said. Ms Kerr is also Robert Geeves' cousin. She did not know at the time she dealt with Amber at the YCHC that Robert was the father of Amber's baby.
Some time in June or July 2001, Michael and Geoffrey Haigh drove to Kingsvale from Sydney to visit Amber at the Geeves' house. Michael Haigh gave evidence that Geoffrey and Robert had a beer, and Michael went to the car to have a nap. After a few hours they took Amber back to Judith Khan's house in Merrylands where Amber stayed for "about a month". While she was in Sydney, according to Geoffrey, Amber kept ringing Robert. Judging by the gaps in visits at the YCHC, this time in Sydney was likely to be between 5 and 30 July 2001 or 18 June and 3 July 2001. Amber returned to Young by train by herself.
On 4 July 2001, Amber spoke to Mr James again and discussed her feelings around the pregnancy. He noted that she was committed to having the baby and was looking to find accommodation in Young if possible, stating that she was feeling uncomfortable in her current situation. Mr James thought it appropriate to refer her to a female colleague, as Amber might be more comfortable with that, and so the next consultation was with another counsellor - Catrina Richens.
On 5 July 2001, Amber had a pregnancy dating ultrasound scan, which provided an estimated date for her baby to arrive as 4 February 2002. This meant she probably became pregnant sometime in April 2001.
To add to the complexity of Amber's life, Paul Harding visited her while she was alone at Huntleigh, and they had sex in Amber's bedroom on at least one occasion but there was no evidence as to when this took place. Amber later called him in Queensland and said that they were videotaped having sex, and that Robert tied her up at the wrists after watching the video of them having sex and "did all sexual things to her". She told Paul that Robert played the video to Amber and said: "Tell me that's not Paul" and asked her a lot of questions as he performed sexual acts on her.
Given what is recorded about what Amber told counsellor, Catrina Richens on 14 August 2001, the event with Robert was likely before 14 August 2001, and may well have been in the context of concern on Robert's part as to who was in fact responsible for the pregnancy discovered in May 2001. Whether what Amber said to Paul was true is difficult to assess. Robert denied it in his record of interview. [34]
Paul Harding gave evidence that he "wasn't allowed" to go to the Geeves' property when the Geeves were home. He did not elaborate on who said that he was not allowed, but his evidence suggests that Amber did not want him to come there when the Geeves were home.
On 30 July 2001, Amber met with Ms Richens, (Bachelor of Social Work), who had worked at YCHC for four years at the time. At that point it seems Amber was back at Stella's, according to the note which said that she was "happy there but plans to find her own accommodation soon". The note also said that she was "unhappy around Anne", but her relationship with Robert was "ongoing as she wants him to be part of the baby's future" and she "was aware that Robert had lied to her on various occasions". Amber is noted to have said that she had no contact with her parents, but had a close relationship with her grandmother and aunt in Lismore and would move to Lismore should Robert decide not to be involved with the baby. Amber spoke of a worry that she may die during childbirth due to her epilepsy and that she did not want her baby to live with Anne or Robert. Ms Richens advised her to seek legal advice on this issue and encouraged her to "keep safe physically and emotionally" regarding her relationship with Robert. In her evidence Ms Richens said that she could tell Amber had an intellectual disability and that her chronological age was more than what her intellectual age was, that she was concerned Robert was a lot older, and that there may be a power "indifference"(sic) between her and Robert and Anne. [35]
Amber wrote a letter dated "8 August 2001" to "Dear Robert", which was found by police at her flat on execution of a search warrant after her disappearance. That letter was consistent with her stated impression that the father, Robert, may not want the baby, stating: "Dear Robert, Hi, how are you going? I've got the letter. The baby is now 14 week's old. The baby is going to be born on the 4 of feb 2002. Yes it is your's but don't worry about it. The baby and I may move away soon. If you really loved us you would of done samething [sic] by now. I know what you asked me in the car was all bullshit. If I die don't worry about the baby ok. Did you get the photo's yet. Love Amber P.S. The baby move a bit."
On 8 August 2001, Amber made an inquiry at Carmody Crampton Solicitors for the making of a Will in which she could make provision for who would have her baby if something happened to her. She told Ms Pisaturo-McMillan, a legal secretary at the firm, that she was four months pregnant and would like to make a Will, recorded by Ms Pisaturo-McMillan in a file note as: "enforceable in the event anything happens to her child to be awarded to aunty and second cousin". Ms Pisaturo-McMillan added the following to the note: "(Father in prison, drug addict; mother unknown; father of child has been in jail - murder?)". [36]
Ms Pisaturo-McMillan gave adamant evidence that she recalled Amber coming into the office on this occasion and that Amber said that she was scared of dying given her epilepsy. Amber also said that once her child is born, her life will be taken: the father of her child had told her if she ever gets pregnant, she will not live beyond the birth of her child - he will end her life. The father of the baby also told her that he has been to prison for murder. [37]
Ms Pisaturo-McMillan was cross-examined about this assertion she made about what Amber told her. [38] First, none of this was included in her file note completed on 8 August 2001. Ms Pisaturo-McMillan was first interviewed by police in 2011, some ten years after the events to which she refers and after much media speculation, including media reports that drew attention to accusations of murder made earlier against Robert Geeves in respect of another woman. Ms Pisaturo-McMillan denied accumulating knowledge about the Geeves from speaking to people in Young. She said that Amber never mentioned Robert's name to her.
It is difficult to know what to make of this evidence. Ms Pisaturo-McMillan did not tell authorities, or even her boss, an experienced solicitor Mr Ross Crampton, about the assertion this then 18 year old woman apparently made, that she thought she would be murdered by the father of her child when the child was born, and that he had threatened her in that way. This seems odd, given Ms Pisaturo-McMillan was a legal secretary at that time and Mr Crampton an experienced solicitor. Unlike the "tying up" assertions Amber made to a number of people, the evidence does not reveal that this extraordinary assertion, if it was in fact made in the terms Ms Pisaturo-McMillan recounts, was made by Amber to anyone else.
Ms Pisaturo-McMillan struck me as an intelligent, responsible, civic-minded woman. There was no contemporaneous record of this very serious allegation of intent. Mr Crampton gave no evidence suggesting that Ms Pisaturo-McMillan had relayed any of this to him. There was, however, reference in the note to a query about the father of the baby being in jail for murder. It seems to me Ms Pisaturo-McMillan may well have confused in her mind the strange litany of things Amber told her in her recount to police ten years later. I have no doubt Amber wanted to make a Will to provide for whom she wanted to have her baby where circumstances prevailing at the time suggested Robert was ambivalent about the baby, and that contrary to the Crown case, the pregnancy does not seem to have been planned at all in consultation with him and/or Anne.
On 9 August 2001, Amber provided some further information by telephone to Ms Pisaturo-McMillan including her address - 18 Huntleigh Road, Kingsvale (Stella's address); occupation - pensioner; aunt Patrica Haigh to be appointed guardian of child; her possessions to a named half-sister; pets to Stella and anything else to Patricia Haigh; with the executor to be Stella.
Ross Crampton prepared the Will, and on 29 August 2001, Amber attended Carmody Crampton to execute her Will. An executed copy of the Will was in evidence, as was the original Will which had been retained at Carmody Crampton for safekeeping. Mr Crampton was an impressive and understated witness. I accept his evidence that, as part of his role, he would have made an assessment as to whether Amber was able to understand the effect of the Will. I am also satisfied that if he had been told Amber had been threatened with murder, he would have acted in a responsible manner and made further inquiry about this with Amber, and reported any concerns to the authorities.
On 14 August 2001, Amber had another meeting with Ms Richens. She told her that she was living with her aunt Stella, and had had no contact with Robert for two weeks. She said she felt she wanted to know whether Robert wanted to play a role in the baby's life or not, and if not, she would consider relocating to Lismore. She spoke about Robert "previously shooting a woman" and Ms Richens noted that Amber told her that Robert had "tied Amber up when he thought she was cheating on him". There is no evidence Ms Richens took any action to report this as an assault or other criminal behaviour, or that she encouraged Amber to do so either. Ms Richens struck me as a competent and responsible social worker who would escalate matters of concern if criminal behaviour was suspected.
On 20 August 2001, Ms Richens made a note that she had called Amber, who told Ms Richens that Robert said he wanted to support her and the baby.
On 2 September 2001, Amber presented to the Emergency Department at Young District Hospital ("YDH") with her aunt and cousin with a history of having cold and flu symptoms for a week. She was worried about vomiting following coughing. The attending person noted that the "aunt needed reassurance re niece's condition". Amber was reviewed by a medical officer who diagnosed bronchitis and prescribed Keflex.
On 6 September 2001, Amber wrote the following letter to Patricia Haigh: "To Trish, How is things? I'm giving you a copy of the will ok. Can you say hello to Kara and Jesse and Jude and tellth [sic] I love them for me please. Love from Amber Xxxxoooo P.S LOVE YOU TOO Trish. Thank you for going to look after my baby for me and can you please tell the baby that I love him so much. That's if something dose [sic] go wrong."
A media article dated 30 July 2002 indicated that a version of this letter was provided to that outlet by Patricia Haigh, so it appears Amber sent (a finalised version of) the letter and a copy of the Will to Patricia, and that the handwritten version of the letter found in Amber's flat on 24 June 2002 on execution of the search warrant was a draft. (There were other letters found that indicate that Amber would first prepare a draft of a letter, with crossings out of misspellings or changes in expression, and this was then apparently followed by a neater version).
On 11 September 2001, Amber attended the YCHC and saw Ms Richens. She reported that Robert was "not as committed to the baby as she had hoped". She was encouraged to look at other options. She said that she decided she would stay in Young with her aunt after the baby was born. The referral was made to Sue Lanham to ensure antenatal care was adequate.
On 24 September 2001, Ms Richens made a call to Amber but she was asleep, so she spoke to her aunt who "expressed concern about Amber's involvement with Robert".
On 29 September 2001, Amber attended the Emergency Department at YDH because of some spotting "following IC [intercourse] this morning". She was checked by Dr Sevier and allowed to go home. There is no record as to with whom the intercourse had taken place.
By 10 October 2001, Amber had relocated to a flat in town, telling Ms Richens at YCHC that it was "too stressful" at her aunt's place as Stella did not want Robert visiting. Amber said she still felt Robert wasn't committed to the baby and she had some concerns that Robert and Anne would try and take the baby from her. Ms Richens encouraged her to seek legal advice and to contact police if Robert or Anne harassed her.
Jacqui acknowledged that she had concerns about Robert and did tell Amber her opinion that the Geeves "would take Amber's baby". Stella was angry that Robert called Amber all the time. Stella told him she would get the police on him if he came to Carinya Downs. [39] I consider it likely that the origins of many of Amber's concerns about Robert were at least partly, if not wholly, from things Stella and Jacqui said to Amber, rather than any particular threat or assertion made by the accused, or behaviour by them towards Amber.
On 11 October 2001, Amber was admitted to YDH with a bleed from her vagina. She was discharged the next morning.
On 13 October 2001, Amber presented to Harden District Hospital "feeling as though she was going to black out". She was transferred to YDH.
Amber presented again to YDH on the night of 20 October 2001 with pain in her hips and gave a history that she had had a "bad fight" with a male friend. She was tired and wanted to stay. She was left to sleep, and the following morning was discharged with a friend, with a note made that she had a "complicated social situation".
Amber was brought in by ambulance to YDH on 25 October 2001 with abdominal pain and was discharged on 27 October 2001. She had urinary symptoms and was investigated by renal ultrasound, but no abnormality was found.
On 2 November 2001, Amber was brought into YDH by ambulance again, stating that she had been hit by a child in the abdomen. After her review, there was a note that she had no money to get a taxi home and that she only had $6.00 at home, which she needed for food. She said that a neighbour may come and get her.
Amber was back at YDH Emergency Department on 14 November 2002 seeking assistance again with anxiety and abdominal pain.
All of these presentations suggest to me that Amber was very anxious about the pregnancy and her health and was not coping living alone.
Amber made some acquaintances with the people living in the Clarke Street block of flats that she moved into on 3 October 2001. These flats were at close quarters and arranged in a claustrophobic formation around a courtyard, so many flats overlooked or faced into each other. Angelina Goode, Lisa Parker and Cindy Brown were all young mothers or mothers to be living in that block of flats at that time. They socialised over coffee occasionally, including at the flat of Leon and Daphne Henry, an older couple who lived in flat number 1. There was evidence from Angelina, Lisa and Cindy at the trial, and also from Leon. Daphne had died so her evidence was in the form of parts of a statement she gave to police on 25 June 2002, less than a week after police were told Amber was missing. [40]
Daphne stated that she saw Robert visiting the flat at least once or twice a week and that he sometimes stayed overnight. He was introduced to her as "the baby's father". She observed Anne Geeves and Paul Harding also visiting on occasion. Daphne's impression was that Amber was mainly at the flat during her pregnancy and would occasionally go out to the Geeves' place, but would normally (though not always) tell Daphne where she was going.
Daphne said that she saw Amber come back to the flats about a week after she had been absent in late January. She came with Stella to get things for herself. She told Daphne she had had the baby. The baby was still at the hospital. A week later she was back having had a fight with Stella, and then went out to Robert and Anne's. Daphne thought that Amber never stayed at the flat again after that. At one point Daphne said that Amber left with a lady who "lives up at the hospital" (possibly a reference to Denise Allbutt, or maybe Brenda McLeod who helped Amber pack up and be transported to Canberra on 4 March 2002 to attend the QEII unit for mothercraft help). Daphne said that Amber then "disappeared". She said that Robert was cranky that she had disappeared and took a bassinette from Amber's flat and asked Daphne to mind it. When Amber returned with the baby, Robert and Amber had a fight and then Amber and the baby and Robert left together. Just after this Amber "went missing" for three weeks and "no one knew where she was". Daphne stated that Robert came to check, and would phone her two to three times a day to see if Amber had returned. Leon gave similar evidence although he was unsure of the period when Amber went missing - whether it was February or March 2002.
Daphne said that when Amber turned up "three weeks later", Daphne spoke to her about not telling anyone where she was. Leon, Daphne's husband, gave evidence that he also "had words" with Amber about disappearing and not telling people where she went.
It appears that this period in February/March 2002 was where Amber went to Sydney to see her uncle, Michael Haigh, and his family, including Tracey Ford, and this was immediately followed by her time in the QEII Centre in Canberra, following which she went back to the Geeves' place.
In Daphne's statement, there is a paragraph that commences with the evaluative statement: "I am aware that Robert Geeves used to have control of Amber's finances" but what is then described is a series of observations consistent with Robert assisting Amber to manage her money and get out of debt. Daphne stated that she saw Amber's Credit Union card in Amber's own purse, and that she knew that Amber went "down the street" to get money from her own account. The use of the word "control" in that context does not have the redolence with which the Crown seeks to invest this arrangement, but this is an issue to which I will return when discussing the alleged "financial control" element of the Crown's circumstantial case.
Amber introduced Angelina to Paul when he was at the Clarke Street flats at some point. Angelina stated that Amber told her that Amber did not want Robert's name on the birth certificate "because of how he treated her". Amber told Angelina that the father of the child could also be Paul or Ray. Ray vehemently denied he had ever touched Amber, saying "She was too young for me". [41]
Amber said to Lisa Parker that Paul could be the father of the baby.
Angelina ended up withdrawing from her friendship with Amber because Amber was saying silly things to others about Angelina's pregnancy, telling her, and others, that Angelina had "lost the baby", despite that not being the case. Angelina found this to be stressful and so she separated herself and would just say "hello" after that.
Angelina had other conversations with Amber, including Amber telling her that she was going to go to Mt Isa to see Paul whom she had been "seeing" whenever he was down from Queensland and that she and Robert planned to have a DNA test to make sure he was the father of the child.
Cindy Brown became Paul Harding's partner in 2002 or 2003 and they now have two children together. Cindy gave evidence that Amber had told her that Robert Geeves tied her up and had sex with her. She, Leon, Daphne and Amber were present when Amber said this. Cindy said that Amber told her that there was a camera in the corner of the lounge room (later in her evidence corrected to the bedroom, consistently with her 27 June 2002 statement) and that apparently Anne Geeves watched it after they "had yeah sex, yeah, I don't know". [42] Cindy denied the possibility that she was relaying a different version of this story she had been told by her partner, Paul, or from Stella, Ray or Jacqui. [43]
Lisa Parker recalled having a conversation with Amber in which Amber told Lisa that she was planning on having another baby with Robert, and that this was because Anne "had cancer". It was unclear when this conversation took place.
Stella said that she found out Amber was pregnant by seeing her, as opposed to being told. She was pressed in examination in chief by the Prosecutor about what Amber told her Anne had said about "wanting the baby". Despite pressing Stella about this asserted conversation, the highest this evidence came to was that Amber told Stella that Anne had said: "If you don't look after the baby you'll, you'll lose it… I'll take it or I'll have it. That's all she wanted". [44] (Who "she" is in this context was not explained). Stella then said: "Yeah she said if you didn't look after it, if you don't look after it, you're, you lost it. You lose it" [45] and that Amber said to Stella: "No one gets it. It's my baby". [46] This is the high-water mark of the evidence regarding any "plan" by Anne to take the baby. The high-water mark is shallow, and I hold serious concerns about the reliability of that third-hand recount in any event, because I have concluded on the whole, Stella is an unreliable witness.
Stella's evidence was very vague in many respects. Stella was elderly, (in her 80s) did not appear to have any hearing impairment or obvious intellectual impairment, but she had an odd, diffuse way of speaking and responding, or rather not responding, to questions. She would go off on tangents and often did not address the question asked by counsel. In many places in her evidence, it remained unclear as to what event, time or conversation she was referring. At some points, Stella attempted to take control of the questioning process by gratuitously commenting on the questions asked, particularly by defence counsel, and interrupted legal argument when she was asked by the Court to remain quiet. She was defensive about her family and anxious to convince the Court that she had loved Amber and treated her well.
The Prosecutor was given leave to assist Stella by reading to her parts of her statement made on 25 June 2002. In that statement Stella had said that Amber had told her that Anne could not have a baby and that Anne wanted her to have a baby for her to keep. At the trial, Stella said that Amber told Anne: "I don't want to have a baby for anyone", and: "it's my baby". It remained unclear when this asserted conversation took place with Amber, what the context was for the assertion allegedly made by Anne about "taking" the baby if Amber didn't look after it, or whether Stella was truthfully recounting a conversation she actually remembered.
These vagueries and attitudes added to my perception of the general unreliability of the evidence of Stella and I consider that I need to exercise great caution in accepting any of Stella's evidence. This is a separate and additional concern to the overwhelming concern I hold about the reliability and truthfulness of accounts Amber gave to various people about the Geeves, including Stella.
Stella claimed in her evidence in chief that she only became aware later that Amber had moved to a flat in Young but was reminded after a s 32 Evidence Act application that she did in fact know, and provided Amber with mats and curtains to take to the flat. Stella said that she avoided going to the flat because she did not want to see Robert Geeves. This last point is one matter I do accept.
Amber's grandmother, Judith Khan, asserted in her 2003 statement that by November 2001 she was in hospital in Lismore and that Amber would ring her over and over. Ms Khan became concerned about the cost and tried to get Amber to stop. She recalled that Amber's phone ended up being disconnected, but then Amber called her on a mobile. She found out Amber was pregnant from Patricia Haigh but Amber did not tell Ms Khan who the father was.
On 5 November 2001, Ms Richens made a home visit to the flat. Amber told her that she had had no contact with Robert and had decided not to pursue him, but concerns that Robert would "harass her" and "take her baby" were raised again. She was reminded to seek legal advice. She was enrolled in antenatal education classes.
On 25 November 2001, Amber was yet again brought in by ambulance to YDH from home complaining of blurred vision and low back pain. She told hospital staff that she was worried she was going to die. The reviewing staff noted that she was a "poor historian". Migraine was diagnosed.
On 3 December 2001, Ms Richens called Amber and confirmed that Amber would see Sue Lanham for antenatal care and that Ms Richens would phone in a few weeks. The notes indicate that Ms Lanham carried out home visits on 12 and 19 December 2001 for antenatal education. She noted that Amber had limited understanding and "needed support ++", and that she had a poor housing situation.
I interpolate that Amber's flat was shown in the footage of the execution of the search warrant on 24 June 2002. [47] It was extremely small, furnished only with piles of clothes and fabric and clutter, a tiny kitchen and little space to live. It would have been very difficult to look after a baby in that environment. There was also little space for visitors.
On 18 December 2001, Ms Richens made a phone call to Amber in which Amber reported that her father was moving to Young to help look after the baby. Ms Richens noted that Amber remained in contact with Robert and that the pregnancy was progressing well.
I have concluded that Amber was really struggling on her own in the flat, despite support from local health services and neighbours. She was understandably frightened and apprehensive about her health and social circumstances, her family's disapproval of Robert and their relationship, and Robert's disapproval of Amber's family. Things were about to get worse, not better, with the arrival of Geoffrey.
Handwritten notes, analysed by the handwriting expert Mr Mesker [48] to have been likely written by the same person (and thought to be Amber), indicated that Amber was reminding herself about arrangements to go to the Credit Union on Thursday (27 December 2001). [49] It appears from the note that Robert was assisting her with that. It is common ground that Amber was provided with $1,000.00 Credit Union loan which went into her bank account on 9 January 2002 and was partly spent and partly taken out in cash the same day, including four separate cash withdrawals at the Mill Tavern. [50]
Transaction records from Amber's bank account covering 2 January 2002 to 19 June 2002 were tendered. A very clear pattern emerged. Up to 5 June 2002 on the day her Centrelink (and later her Family Assistance payments) arrived in the account, the total money was withdrawn - down to the last few dollars and cents - on that day, in cash, at an ATM or over the counter at a Credit Union branch. The only variation to that was an occasional debit card purchase such as at an IGA or Kmart, and on 30 January 2002, (just after she had had her baby), where there was a one-day-delay before the whole amount was withdrawn in cash.
Another note analysed by Mr Mesker as written by Amber suggested that she estimated that her father would arrive on 30 or 31 December 2001 and that she hoped "that there is no shit with anything". [51]
It is not clear exactly on what date Amber's father Geoffrey arrived in Kingsvale but it seems to have been 31 December 2001 or 1 January 2002. Stella gave evidence that Geoffrey turned up at Carinya Downs at some point and she told him he could not stay because he was drunk. She gave him money to leave.
On 4 January 2002, an agreement [52] was signed by Amber and Robert, written out by Anne that stated: "Dated 4th day January 2002. I Robert Samuel Geeves agree not to take Amber Michelle Haigh's baby due to be born in February 2002 only if she agree's to the following -: She is never to take the baby anywhere near or associate with Paul Raymond Harding, Stella Nealon, Ray (Skeeta) Harding, Jackie Cash or Stephen Cash, all of Huntleigh Road, Kingsvale, If she does the agreement will be broken. This is to protect the child from any sort of abuse from the above mentioned."
An account of Geoffrey's visit is set out in the AVO Complaint and Summons that Amber signed on 14 January 2002, [53] which suggests that he had arrived around 31 December 2001/1 January 2002: "CIRCUMSTANCES OF COMPLAINT The protected person is the daughter of the defendant. The protected person is currently pregnant with the baby due In February 2002. The protected person has previously had an AVO against the defendant about 5 years ago. The defendant arrived in Young about two weeks ago to assist the protected person. Since he arrived, the defendant has been constantly intoxicated and having arguments with the protected person. He has also been upsetting her by saying things such as 'You are not my daughter'. Around the 05/01/2002, the defendant came home drunk and the protected person refused him entry. He then commenced to bang on the front door. The protected person then left and stayed the night at a friends. She has been told by neighbours that the defendant continued to bang on the door for most of the night. Complaints have been made to the landlord. Due to the stress of the situation, the protected person was admitted to hospital overnight on the 07/01/2002. On the 11/01/2002, the protected person told the defendant he could no longer stay with her. So he stayed away that night. The next day, the protected person packed up and took his belongings to him. The defendant then kept constantly telephoning the protected person saying he was sorry and to let him back in. The protected person then left the phone off the hook. So the defendant then commenced to ring the protected person's next door neighbour leaving messages. Since Sunday, the protected person has been staying with a friend as she is afraid to go home. This morning (14/01/2002) the protected person has been informed by a neighbour that the defendant has been waiting at her house for her to return."
An AVO was also sought by the Geeves because Geoffrey had allegedly turned up at their house on 12 January 2002 at 11:00pm wanting to be let in, then refused to leave, threatened them and they had to call the police to get him to leave. He was noted in the AVO documents [54] to have been heavily intoxicated and "taking medication".
Geoffrey did not contest the AVOs and on 16 January 2002 sent a letter to Young courthouse [55] stating that he was leaving Young that day and returning to Sydney, would not attend court and consented to the orders as he "no longer wish[ed] to have any contact with the parties". The orders prevented him from going within 100 metres of premises at which Amber lived or may from time to time reside or work, specified as 3/17 Clarke Street, Young, and required that he not contact Amber by any means, including through a third person, except his own legal representative, and that he must not approach her at any time or place. The orders in favour of the Geeves gave a 1,000 metre approach limit. The orders were made on 22 January 2002 and were stated to be in place for 12 months. [56] There is no evidence either AVO was modified or withdrawn.
On 15 January 2002, Sue Powell, an early childhood nurse allocated to Amber, made a home visit to Clarke Street. Ms Powell qualified as a registered nurse in 1977, and midwife in 1980. She had also completed Child and Family Health Training at Canberra University and obtained a graduate diploma in Child and Family Health. Ms Powell explained that her role as a child and family health specialist involved care of the mother and baby from the time of birth up until school age. She explained that most of the emphasis is on the early days when the child goes home and focus is on development of the baby and teaching and management of the mother's needs, as well looking at feeding, safety issues and completing regular developmental checks on the baby and monitoring the mother's health and well-being.
Ms Powell noted in the YCHC records [57] that she had made "repeated" phone calls with no answer and, on contact with the YDH, she found out that Amber had been in YDH on 7 January 2002 with some uterine irritability and abdominal pain and had stayed overnight and was discharged "with friend". [58]
On 16 January 2002, Catrina Richens phoned Amber and could not make contact so spoke to Stella, who was unsure of Amber's whereabouts but thought she may have been staying with Geeves.
On the evening of 20 January 2002, neighbour Lisa Parker [59] saw Robert at the flat with Amber. He left at about 5:00pm, then Paul arrived and stayed for about half an hour and left, then Robert came back with dinner and stayed for a while. Amber went into labour later that night.
Paul was seen by both Lisa Parker and Angelina Goode, sitting in the garden bed about two to three metres outside Amber's unit at 2:00am. [60]
Stella said she "took Amber to hospital" [61] but this seems to be inaccurate because YDH records [62] indicate that Amber was in fact brought in by ambulance from home with abdominal pain for some hours and some vaginal bleeding and arriving shortly before 2:00am. The hospital records note that Amber was having moderate to strong contractions when first assessed by the midwife at about 2:00am. At 3:00am there was a note "boyfriend in attendance". This must be a reference to Paul. He confirmed in his evidence that he was in the room when Amber was in labour, the nurse having been asked by Amber to bring him in. When the nurse referred to him as the "the boyfriend", Paul corrected her saying "nothing, nothing like that". [63] At 4:00am there is a note "pts great aunt in attendance and very supportive". The baby was born at [REDACTED]. The doctor's note indicated that Sue Powell should be notified of delivery and that Amber "will likely need transfer to QEII prior to discharge - is very underconfident".
Sue Powell visited Amber that day at the hospital and discussed referral to the QEII for parenting skills. A note on the relevant referral form in the records from QEII [64] recorded that the early childhood nurse noted: "possibly stay with aunt at first - disability mild and relationship issues with baby's father".
Catrina Richens visited Amber the following day and noted Amber would attend the QEII and that she had decided to move back in with her aunt until she feels more confident. Amber reported not wanting to have contact with Robert and Anne, however later that day Stella saw Robert and Anne Geeves visiting Amber at YDH and Robert was holding the baby. Sue Powell noted that Amber needed "a lot of assistance" with baby care and breastfeeding.
The YDH notes confirm that Anne and Robert Geeves visited Amber on 22 January 2002 and that Amber was slowly gaining confidence with breastfeeding, but needed some help with "attachment". She was described by other nurses during her stay as cheerful and seeking reassurance regarding mothercraft.
Despite having just given birth, Amber had the presence of mind to tell YDH staff on 22 January 2002 that she had a court date for her AVO that day and asked that they notify the local court of her inability to attend. A letter to the court was prepared by Dr Larcombe, Amber's attending doctor.
The next mention of the Geeves visiting was 27 January 2002 and again on 28 January 2002 "for a long period". Amber was given a gate pass to go out with them on both days to collect some clothes and medications.
At 9:20pm a note is made that Amber went to the nurses station and stated that she was worried about going to her aunt's house on discharge as her boyfriend lives there and Robert "feels he may harm the baby but she does not think that it will happen". Amber stated that her aunt came to visit that afternoon when Robert was there and she left. Amber stated that she "does not want any fighting". The author then wrote: "perhaps Sue Powell +/or DoCS should be informed of this". "Amber also stated that her father had made her sign an agreement when he was drunk that she would to let Robert visit the baby". (Perhaps this should read "not let"). (This may be a reference to the 4 January 2002 agreement or the author of the note has recorded or was given a confused account).
On 28 January 2002, Amber spoke with another mother at the hospital, Angela Fitzpatrick, and told her that she "has a boyfriend", separate to the baby's father, and that the father of her baby has a son the same age as her. [65] Amber spoke about signing a piece of paper "so that they can't take my baby", and Angela reassured Amber that it was "just a piece of paper", not signed at a courthouse or police station, and that no one could take her baby unless she wasn't caring for him properly. [66] Amber was noted in YDH records as discharged on 29 January 2002 "with aunt + family".
Amber was visited by Ms Powell at Stella's house on 31 January 2002. Ms Powell noted that Amber looked relaxed and well, and was coping with the basic needs of the baby with her aunt's assistance. Ms Powell noted in the YCHC intake form for Ben that Amber did not wish to identify the father's name. Ms Powell gave evidence that she was uncertain about Amber's capacity to look after the baby, to recognise his needs at appropriate times, and to keep him safe.
Lisa Parker gave evidence that she was invited in to see the baby in Amber's unit and Stella, Paul and maybe Ray were present. Lisa recalled that on that occasion Amber pointed out how much the baby looked like Paul. Ms Parker was reminded in cross-examination that in her statement to police in 2002 she recounted that Amber told her that Amber "thinks Paul is the father". [67] (Emphasis added). Given that was the version provided in 2002, I consider that statement to be more reliable than Lisa Parker's recollection provided in her evidence in 2024.
Ms Parker observed Amber coming and going frequently, sometimes going to Robert's, sometimes to Stella's and sometimes to Richard and Denise Allbutt's. She observed that Amber obviously loved the baby and the baby "never left her side", [68] although in cross-examination conceded that she knew Amber had left the baby with Leon and Daphne a couple of times while she showered.
Meanwhile, on a date that must have been just before the end of January 2002, Anne took her and Robert's 19-year-old son Robbie to the hospital to "show him a surprise" and "meet his new baby brother". Robbie became upset and would not go in. Robbie said that Anne said something about blaming herself for him not having a sister and that she was sorry, and that she thought he would be happy with a baby brother. He asked Anne to take him home. He said he wanted nothing to do with the baby. (He knew Amber had been pregnant from seeing her in town, but did not want to believe it to begin with). [69]
Robbie was upset and physically ill as a result of these events. He took a break from work at the vineyard because his parents worked there. [70] About a week later he phoned Huntleigh and Anne answered. Robbie said that he wanted to be left alone and needed time to deal with things. Anne was upset and said: "I may as well die now". [71]
Later that night, Anne turned up at Robbie's house holding the baby and trying to come inside to talk. Robert remained in the car out the front of the house. Robbie let Anne in and according to Robbie, Anne said: "It's your brother" and "Tell me to fuck off to my face and I'll leave you alone" and Robbie replied that he would not do that. [72]
Robbie's girlfriend Natasha gave evidence that Anne tried to give her the baby, but she didn't want to hold him and that Robbie was saying he didn't want to be a part of it. [73]
Robbie said that during this conversation Anne said: "Haven't you ever heard of a surrogate mother". [74] Natasha recalls Anne saying: "Haven't you ever heard of surrogacy". [75]
At some point, Robert (who was by then at the front door) became upset and threatened to come back later and throw a bench through the window. He did not do so and did not enter the house. Robbie applied for an AVO against his father that night.
On 2 February 2002, Amber left Stella's place in the middle of a very hot day and walked the baby in the pram to Huntleigh. Stella contacted the police on 3 February 2002 and Sgt Giddings came to the house. Stella told Sgt Giddings that Robert was "very domineering" and that she was afraid he would try and persuade Amber to stay there and that he and his wife would "manipulate Amber" into allowing them to take control of the baby. Stella claimed in her evidence not to remember any of this. [76] Sgt Giddings stated in his COPS notes [77] that he visited Huntleigh and that the house was rundown, filthy and disgusting and the premises were not suitable for Amber or her baby. He asked Robert to drive Amber and the baby back to Stella's.
This did not occur, and on 4 February 2002, when Ms Powell phoned to confirm the follow up home visit, she was told by Stella that Amber had left with the baby and not returned. Amber left a message with Ms Powell that she would be at Clarke Street on the 5th, but when Ms Powell visited on 5 February 2002, no one was there. A neighbour stated that Amber had told her that "they" would not let her come to town. Ms Powell formed the view that "it sounded like Amber was being held against her will" and so she phoned Sgt Giddings. Sgt Giddings stated he would visit Huntleigh. He did so and conveyed Amber and the baby back to Stella's house.
When Ms Powell arrived that afternoon at Stella's house, she described a worrying scene. Amber was anxious and frightened and in her room with the baby, while there was a screaming fight between family members (verbal) that had erupted concerning Amber's presence and her aunt's preparedness to care for her. [78] Ms Powell wasn't sure whom it included although she recalls Jacqui being there. Ms Powell was so concerned that she decided to collect Amber and the baby's things from the Geeves and take Amber to Clarke Street. She noted in the YCHC notes she made that day: "Amber greatly relieved to be away from the fighting which she said had been happening every time the family members came to the house (most days)". [79]
The following morning, 6 February 2002, Ms Powell visited Amber with Ms Richens. Amber confirmed Robert and Anne had brought her food the night before and that they were going to visit and wanted to take her to their house for the day. Ms Powell said it was a matter for her. Amber said Robert wanted to speak to Ms Powell and Ms Powell said her role was with Amber and the baby and that Robert should speak to the intake officer if he had something to raise. Ms Powell admitted in her evidence that she had told Amber that if Robert gained custody of the baby she would lose the right to be the main guardian of the baby and make decisions about his care. She admitted in her evidence that this was not quite correct, but said she was trying to "simplify it" for Amber.
Robert and Anne attended the YCHC that day to complain about Ms Powell and to say that they did not want her visiting their home any more. Heather Ritchie, the YCHC manager, explained that it was standard practice to follow up and if Robert would bring Amber into the centre, they did not need to do home visits. Robert told Ms Ritchie that "you can't believe what Amber says" and that she "tells lies" but reluctantly agreed to the plan. [80] Ms Ritchie suggested to Ms Powell to drop the contact visits back a bit, which she did. [81]
Ms Powell also organised a referral to a disability advocacy worker and noted that Robert had been in to see a counsellor at YCHC and said he would take Amber to his home. Ms Powell had by now decided that the Geeves were trying to take custody of the baby and told the police accordingly. She had been told things about Robert Geeves' past, including that in 1993, Robert's then partner had been shot. She gave evidence that this made her "more hesitant… more diligent" with her notes, wanting to write as much detail as she could.
In her evidence, Ms Powell stated that she was concerned about the circumstances of Amber's pregnancy and that Amber was "needy" and had a "significant" intellectual disability. This is contrary to what she included in the referral letter for Sharon Stuckey, the Disability Advocate, that Amber had a "mild" intellectual disability. Ms Powell said that she was concerned that Amber was naïve and that Amber did not understand she was being "used… to have a baby".
Ms Powell made the extraordinary admission that she accessed Anne Geeves' medical records. She gave evidence that she wanted to see if she could find "any file on the Geeves that might help her with this case". She said that she was "allowed to" do that. She did not say on what basis she was "allowed" to do so and frankly I doubt that is a true statement, but what it indicated was that Ms Powell became fixated on her perceptions about what was going on with Amber and the Geeves. She stepped well beyond her role as an early childhood nurse, into the self-appointed role of agitator and investigator. I consider that she did this out of genuine concern for Amber and the baby, based on her perceptions and fears for a vulnerable young woman, but a lot of what she raised and repeated as fact was suspicion and her concerns became repeated as if they were based on established truth rather than rumour.
DoCS were contacted. Jacqueline Thompson from DoCS was allocated the case and plans were made to assess the baby's circumstances and whether he was in fact a child at risk that would trigger a DoCS response.
The Court and counsel remained alert to the requirements of s 29 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) prohibiting admission into evidence any report or content of any report to DoCS: Hayward v R (2018) 97 NSWLR 852; [2018] NSWCCA 104. Care was taken to limit admission into evidence to documents that did not include such reports or the content of such reports. Tendered documents were confined to information gathering and reports generated by DoCS workers.
DoCS, in the form of social workers Jacqueline Thompson and Rodrigo Arriagada, visited the Geeves home on 11 February 2002, and reported that Amber appeared well, and the baby appeared well cared for. Ms Thompson gave evidence. She impressed as compassionate, intelligent and thorough. In her evidence she explained some aspects of DoCS processes and the nature of their role. She noted in her report that Anne was supportive of Amber's mothering efforts. Ms Thompson also noted in her report [82] that Amber did say, following the birth of Ben, that she went to the flat but felt scared at being alone. Amber and Anne denied that Robert was the birth father. The bassinette was in the main bedroom because Robert and Anne cared for the baby at night, given that Amber's medication made her sleep soundly. Ms Thompson carried out some subsequent intelligence gathering and prepared further case notes and a detailed report. That report included observations that "Amber has a fear that the Department will remove Ben, which indicates that her history with the Department affects her current view of the department's role". Amber also made reference to Paul Harding sexually assaulting her on one occasion and that she agreed to have a sexual relationship with him. On 7 March 2002, DoCS closed the file and the next day distributed an outcome report. The file was reopened in late June after Amber was reported missing, at the apparent agitation of police.
Amber and Ben did not attend the 10:00am appointment made at the YCHC for 12 February 2002 with the Disability Advocacy Worker. I should observe that Amber was dependent on someone driving her the 15 to 20kms into town and an appointment at 10:00am on a weekday, if Robert needed to drive her, could be a problem given that he worked from 7:00am to 3:30pm most weekdays. Amber arrived at the YCHC at 4:30pm that day wanting to be seen with the baby. She saw Ms Richens and said she felt ok staying at Robert's and that they were treating her well. She said she did not want Robert's name on the baby's registration papers, and had already completed them. There is a note that she told Catrina that she was "angry" that DoCS had become involved, but admitted that the DoCS worker had been nice to her. Ms Powell carried out a baby health check and although he had slight jaundice, noted that the baby appeared to be adequately cared for and his weight gain was adequate.
Ben's birth certificate [83] indicated that his birth was registered on [REDACTED] so Amber must have sent in the documents for registration on or before that day.
Amber attended her appointment at the YCHC on 18 February 2002 for a baby check and discussion with a counsellor. Ms Powell noted that Amber was managing fairly well, keen to attend the QEII and that things "are okay" where she was staying but she wanted to go to the flat after the QEII because she was now feeling more comfortable with managing the baby. Amber mentioned a plan to travel to Lismore by bus with the baby and a friend to visit her sick grandfather.
On 19 February 2002, Amber became unwell and the Geeves drove her to Cathy Kerr's house to use the phone to call an ambulance. Amber said that she felt like she was going to have a fit. She was helped out of the house and into the car to go to the road and wait for the ambulance. Amber was admitted to YDH. Robert was noted on the entry form for this admission as Amber's next of kin, and Anne as the "second contact". Amber's symptoms were noted to be tremor, feeling lightheaded, sick, hot and very vague. The provisional diagnosis was anxiety and "? [query] pre-convulsion". She was treated with oxygen, rest and sedatives. To the extent that the Prosecution submitted that this admission to hospital was a ruse organised by the Geeves to prevent Amber travelling to Lismore, I reject it as a baseless assertion. Amber had Ben room in with her. There are various observations noted about her "mothering with support". Anne and Robert visited on the evening of 20 February 2002.
On 21 February 2002, Ms Thompson visited Amber in hospital. She observed Amber to be interacting well with the baby, feeding him and saying how much she loved him. Amber told Ms Thompson that she intended applying for Department of Housing accommodation and would stay with the Geeves until then. She said she got drunk with Robert and that was how she got pregnant. She told Ms Thompson that she had initially denied Robert was the father when DoCS visited on 11 February 2002 because Anne was there and she "did not want to make her feel small". She was asked about an assertion that Robert had "tied her up" and "sexually assaulted her", and she denied that this had happened. [84]
On 22 February 2002, Robert and Anne were noted in the YDH records as being present and wanting to take the baby for a drive, but this was opposed by nursing staff as it would interfere with breastfeeding. Amber went out on 23 February 2002 on a 24-hour gate pass at 6:00pm with a "friend". It is not clear who that "friend" was, although it may not have been Robert or Anne, but Denise Allbutt.
The YDH notes indicate that Amber phoned the hospital on 24 February 2002 saying she was fine at home and did not need to return. Her records were noted with a diagnosis of acute anxiety, and secondary diagnoses of "epilepsy and social problems". There were various discussions with Amber while in YDH between 19 and 23 February 2002 about contraception, which suggests that there was an assessment made, or Amber told them, that she was again sexually active. Amongst other things, she reported to hospital staff fears that her baby "will be taken away" and that she was "stressed out" by nurses at community health. This appears to be a reference to Ms Powell, and is unsurprising given the well-meaning but scaremongering advice she had been given by Ms Powell, heightening her fears about losing her baby, and by the recent attendance of DoCS at the Geeves home.
On 25 February 2002, Ms Richens completed a home visit at the flat. Amber told her that she wanted to stay in the flat and not go back to the Geeves' house. She was still feeling a little unwell. Amber discussed needing extra financial help. Amber was observed by a neighbour, Daphne Henry, to return to the flats. Daphne stated that Amber told her that she was going to stay for a few days but a couple of hours later she was picked up by a female person and left.
Richard Allbutt was a former neighbour of the Nealon/Hardings in Kingsvale, who had moved into Young by 2001. He gave evidence that around this time Amber would often come and visit them, particularly his wife Denise, with the baby. They would talk and the Allbutts would provide food. Richard thought she was lonely. He described her as "talking in riddles" and that "you couldn't make out what she was saying half the time". [85] Sometimes he would go and pick her up and drop her home, and sometimes she would walk over with the baby in the pram. He described a period where Amber and the baby stayed with them for "about a week".
I have concluded that Amber was having even more difficulty managing at the flat on her own with the demands of a new baby on return from hospital in late February 2002 and that is one of the reasons why she was at the Allbutt's house on 26 February 2002 when YCHC staff visited, and may have been there since 23 February 2002. Amber told Catrina Richens on 25 February 2002 that she had gone back to the flat from the Geeves' and did not want to go back to their home and would like to stay at the flat and get herself and Ben into a routine.
The Emergency Department records at YDH indicate that on 25 February 2002 at 11:30pm, Amber presented to the Emergency Department with a friend, "Denise". The record stated: "feeling apprehensive as having an order taken out against "Robert" in court, as he is "annoying her", and "states she is now going to have DNA testing done on the baby to be sure about Robert's paternity".
On 26 February 2002, Amber called to ask that Ms Powell and Ms Richens visit her at her friend's house at [REDACTED]. This is Richard and Denise Allbutt's address. Amber said that Robert had taken the baby bassinette from the flat after gaining access with a spare key and that Amber would like the locks changed. DoCS indicated they would fund a new bassinette. A porta-cot was purchased, extra nappies delivered and a plan made for friends to take Amber to pick up the new key for the flat. It was noted that DoCS would pay for Amber's transport on 4 March 2002 to the QEII. Meanwhile Robert had called Ms Thompson and advised that Amber had gone to a mate's place and he was worried the "novelty was wearing off" having Ben. [86]
On an unspecified date, but said to be the end of February 2002, Amber called her aunt Patricia Haigh asking for a lift to Lismore. Patricia was flying back to Lismore so she told Amber to get the train and that Amber and her baby could move in with her. [87]
On 27 February 2002, Amber boarded a train to Sydney via Cootamundra with Ben. It seems that she did not tell anyone that she was doing this. The people she ended up visiting, Michael Haigh and his partner Tracey Ford, living in Emerton with their three children, had not been informed she was coming. She simply turned up at Mt Druitt station at 10:00pm or 10:30pm unannounced.
Her train had been delayed at Cootamundra and a young woman the same age as Amber, Petrina Ingram, struck up a conversation with Amber. They decided to go for lunch together and walk into town. Amber told Petrina she was going to Sydney but did not say why. Amber talked about the baby's father, his wife and care for the baby. Petrina was surprised about the fact that the wife and husband were in her life and visited her flat. Amber told Petrina that the husband and wife would come to her place in Young with alcohol. They would all drink until she was drunk, and then the wife would leave, and "the husband would tie her to the bed and have sex with her". Amber said that the wife could not have children and that they were trying to get the baby off her or get custody of the baby. Petrina kept a diary back then and had made a note in the diary on the same day about her interaction with Amber. She also told her boyfriend about it at that time. She no longer had the diary by the time she gave evidence on 2 July 2024. [88]
It is important to note that Ms Ingram's recount did not include an assertion that the "tying up" was non-consensual, nor that the drinking to the stage of being drunk was against Amber's will. Nor was the time the alleged event occurred identified, or whether it was more than once, although that is an available interpretation of the outline repeated by Ms Ingram some 22 years later when she came to give her statement to police.
Ms Ingram was an impressive and straightforward witness. She gave an unadorned account that I was satisfied was without any agenda or prejudice. Whether what Amber said to her was true or accurately described something that had in fact occurred, is a whole other question.
When all the evidence about Robert allegedly tying up Amber (and having sex with her) is assessed, it becomes clear that although repeated to Paul, Jacqui Cash, Cindy, Leon, Angelina and Petrina Ingram, and the YCHC worker Ms Richens, these slightly different accounts are all likely references to one incident and it is possible the incident was fabricated by Amber for attention from Paul and her family and later Ms Ingram and Ms Richens. I do not accept that the evidence offered was such that I could draw any inference, even if I accepted Amber's account as true, that the "tying up" occurred more than once.
Ms Ingram contacted Crime Stoppers when she saw a missing person bulletin on the news when she was home with her family near Ariah Park in late 2002. She conveyed to the person she spoke to her entire interaction with Amber. Ms Ingram said that at that time she would have known the dates, but does not know the dates now. The person she spoke to in 2002 said they would get a detective to call her back, but that did not happen. She called again in 2008, in response to a renewed notice to call Crime Stoppers with information. There was a third call she made at another time but there was no response from police until a call this year from DSC Amanda Cary. The first time she provided her version to police was 2024.
The diary entry that Ms Ingram made back in 2002 could not be scrutinised for cross-examination. I accept that the defence have been deprived of an avenue of potentially important cross-examination as a result of the delay in prosecution. This is a matter about which I will specifically direct myself shortly.
Amber arrived at Michael Haigh and Tracey Ford's house, having called them from Mt Druitt station, at about 10:00pm to 10:30pm that night, 27 February 2002. At some point while there, she told Michael that she wanted to come up to show them her baby, and that she had had an argument with Robert Geeves although she didn't say why. Amber also said that she was "scared" or more correctly, "worried" what Anne would do about the fact that she was still sleeping with Robert. Michael observed her to be doing a very good job with the baby, feeding him, changing him and cuddling him: "She was very smitten with that little baby". He had in the past on one occasion observed Amber taking out money - a large amount - and that she was "pretty free" with her money and would lend it to people. Michael knew his brother Geoffrey, (Amber's father), had hepatitis and Michael had sought advice about how to minimise infection risk for his family when Geoffrey visited, but he did not think he discussed this with Amber.
Tracey Ford gave evidence that the first contact from Amber about the February 2002 visit was when Amber rang from Mt Druitt station at about 10:00pm. She wanted to bring the baby over. She arrived shortly after in a taxi. The next day, she told Tracey that she was fighting with Robert, and that she had taken Ben and her keycard and caught the train.
Tracey observed that Amber needed a bit of help with the baby, like showing her how to breastfeed properly. Tracey decided that the baby wasn't getting enough milk, so they went to the clinic nurse at Emerton pharmacy and put him on formula feeds. Tracey said that she had seen Amber using her keycard at an ATM without assistance. Amber explained that Robert was "cranky", because she wanted to bring Ben up to see her father and Robert didn't like her father.
The bank records show that 27 February 2002 was a "pension day" and that Amber made a cash withdrawal at an ATM of $400.00, leaving 47 cents in her account. [89]
Tracey and Amber went shopping and Amber bought clothes for herself and Ben on Amber's keycard and spent about $400.00. Amber told Tracey that Robert "keeps her keycard from her" all the time, and she had to ask Robert if she wanted cigarettes. Tracey was reminded of the words she used in her 2002 statement, which actually places this evidence in a different light - that is, Amber had told Tracey that Robert said to her: "I do not want you to take the baby with you. I don't like your father and I don't want him near my son". Further, what Amber said about using the keycard was: "Robert will kill me as I'm fighting with him. When I left and I took my keycard. When I get home, I hope that Robert will not be angry at me for buying all of these clothes". [90]
These reflections indicate to me an attitude and situation more aligned with care and concern rather than coercion and control. Amber was in receipt of between $237.00 and $300.00 per fortnight, with a $145.00 fortnightly family assistance payment to live on and provide for Ben. The evidence was left unclear as to whether that also had to include rent payments and if so, how much. It was a legitimate concern that Amber may have been wasting money with poor spending decisions. It was a legitimate concern that Amber may have been exposing the baby to a problematic person who, just a month before, had made so much trouble for Amber that she ended up in hospital, could not go home and had to hide from him and take out an AVO because of his drunken, drug-intoxicated, abusive and threatening behaviour.
When Tracey put Amber back on the train at Strathfield four days later, that was the last time she saw Amber. She asked Amber to call her when she got home, but she did not. Tracey expected that if Amber was alive she would have called her. She had a good relationship with Amber. Whilst they did not see each other regularly, Amber would just "pop up". Tracey described Amber as a good person who was a little bit slow and naïve, trusted everybody and believed everything she was told. Tracey did not contact Amber when she learned Geoffrey Haigh was very ill, saying: "I wouldn't have known how to contact Amber".
Meanwhile back in Young, Robert and Anne did not know where Amber had gone. Available evidence suggests that they last saw her possibly on 22 February 2002 when she was sick in hospital being treated for a suspected fit, or, if it is true Amber returned to Huntleigh with them on 23 February 2002, the last time they would have seen her would likely have been 24 February 2002 when she returned to her flat, and then disappeared.
On 1 March 2002, which would be five to seven days after the Geeves had last seen Amber, they visited DoCS Cootamundra to see Ms Thompson. They raised concerns about how Amber was coping with Ben and told Ms Thompson that Amber writes "suicide notes all the time". Robert gave a note to Ms Thompson, and she made a copy of it. It said: "Goodbye everyone. I hope that yours have a good live now. Now no-one has to warrie [sic] about me. I will be happy because I will be with my nan and baby. Now my mum can have fun and she can have the life that she want's. Dad, I'm so sorry. I tryed [sic] my heat's. I LOVE YOU Jude. Paul, I realy [sic] did loved you before. I wished that everything was diffant [sic]. Robert, thank you for everythink that you done for me. goodbye and goodluck everyone." [91]
A photocopy of the note was found by police on execution of the search warrant at Amber's flat on 25 June 2002. [92]
A neighbour at the Clarke Street flats, Leon Henry, gave evidence that Robert rang him "each day" to see if he knew where Amber was. Leon said that he did not see Amber for about three weeks.
On 4 March 2002, Amber was transported, (as arranged for her), from her Clarke Street flat by a car driven by Brenda McLeod to the QEII Centre in Canberra where she remained until 8 March 2002 and then was delivered to the Geeves' house.
On the morning of 4 March 2002, Amber was disorganised, flustered and needed help from Brenda and a neighbour to pack. She forgot her shoes. [93] She told Brenda on the drive to QEII that she was keen to learn more skills for looking after the baby because she wanted to take the baby to see her father in Sydney. She did not name the father of the baby, but said he lived between Wombat and Harden with his wife, and that "they used to get her drunk" and that is how the baby was conceived. Further, that she "wouldn't even have the baby" if the father had not got her drunk. [94] She told Brenda that they wanted to adopt her baby and she did not want to allow that because it was her baby and she wanted to keep him. Brenda said that Amber seemed to adore the baby and was very proud of him.
While at the QEII, Amber's parenting skills were observed and evaluated in the notes. [95] She was noted to be anxious with Ben's crying, that she left him to scream quite often and was not good at settling him. She was encouraged to rock or pat him. There were various criticisms noted that Amber "abdicates responsibility of the baby to other parents", passes him around when he should be settled after a feed, and that she, at one point, left him unattended on a lounge. In the discharge summary it is noted, somewhat witheringly, that Amber's understanding of the baby's developmental stages was "fantisy"(sic). The Geeves visited on one occasion and took Amber out for dinner.
Another mother at the QEII, Keli Wood, described Amber telling her about her personal life. Amber said that the father of her baby was married and that she was living with the married couple who were in their forties. She told the group of mothers, of whom Keli was one, that she felt that if she wasn't living with them she would lose custody of the baby and they would get custody. [96]
Ms Powell rang the QEII to report things about Robert - that he has a "criminal record", a history of "homicide shooting of ex-partner", and that staff worry they will have no access to Amber and Ben. Ms Powell said to QEII staff that Robert and his wife "would like the baby". She also asserted that the Geeves were at the hospital "all day and every day" (which is not reflected in the YDH notes and is unlikely to be true) given Robert was employed), that Amber missed appointments at the YCHC and that she, Ms Powell, had been told that Robert was "keeping Amber against her will". Ms Powell said that she gave that information to Emma Baldock at the QEII because she was scared that something might happen at the hands of Robert Geeves while Amber was in the QEII. [97]
Emma Baldock was a counsellor at the QEII. She qualified as a nurse in 1972 and midwife in 1973. She obtained a Graduate Diploma in Maternal and Child Health in 1981, a Bachelor of Applied Science in Health Education in 1987, a Graduate Diploma in Community Counselling in 1997 and was completing a Master's in Education (Counselling Research) by thesis in 2002. Ms Baldock was involved in a one to one and a half hour counselling session with Amber on 7 March 2002. The purpose was to ascertain Amber's physical and psycho-social needs in order to be an effective parent, and what sorts of supports she would need after leaving the QEII. She found Amber to be a poor historian, weaving all over the place with no logical sequence and it was difficult to get a clear story. Amber also seemed to be confused about her relationship with Robert. [98]
Amber told Ms Baldock that the baby was conceived when Amber and Robert were drunk and that Anne was angry about the pregnancy because Amber was on anti-epileptics. Amber claimed that Anne told Amber to "get rid of it" and have another one with Robert when she was "not on tablets". She said it was a good birth and that her ex-boyfriend and aunt were at the birth. She described herself as a "state award", that her mother did not want her, and her father went to jail. She kicked him out because he drinks "24/24". Amber told Ms Baldock that she was planning to return to her own flat, would not resume a sexual relationship with Robert and that she wanted more kids, but not with Robert. She said that Robert managed Amber's money and gives her "some". She stated that if Anne and Robert tried to get Ben because they want a baby, she would tell him to "back off".
The conclusion communicated to the YCHC via Ms Baldock was that Amber's parenting skills were at times inadequate, especially at night and around safety issues, and that she would have difficulty managing by herself. [99]
Ms Baldock gave evidence that because of Amber's background, she had little idea of the realities of parenting. She described Amber as having a "disorganised attachment style" as a result of her upbringing. She explained that is a person that has not had the ability to form trusting relationships and so tends to form relationships in a belief and hope that it will provide love and security, but it may not. That kind of person can be somewhat indiscriminate. If there is a person who provides support, there will always be a hope that there will be more. Noting that Amber's intellectual age was about 13, 13-year-olds are less discriminating. Amber hadn't formed enough knowledge of relationships. [100]
On the trip back from the QEII, Amber told Ms McLeod that she felt she would now be capable of taking her son to Sydney on the train but she did not say when she would go. [101] At Amber's request she was returned to the Geeves' property; Amber said she had to go there or she could "get into trouble". [102] On arrival, Anne came out and took the baby and went inside, leaving Amber to get her things out of the car.
In early March 2002, Stella and Jacqui were at the Mill Tavern and saw Anne with Ben. According to Jacqui, Amber was not with them or, if she was, she did not see her. Jacqui had "words" with them about her concerns that they were trying to keep Amber away from her family. Jacqui gave evidence that the family "did not want someone from outside trying to take over" and that she did not like the Geeves.
Amber missed appointments with her GP and with Ms Powell on 11 March 2002. Ms Powell visited the flat the next day and was told by a neighbour that Amber had not been back. Ms Powell followed up, leaving messages on Amber and the Geeves' phone banks requesting Amber contact her for an appointment. [103] Ultimately, an appointment was organised for 15 April 2002 and Amber attended with Ben. Amber said that she was living with the Geeves and occasionally visited the flat. This was the first appointment that Amber organised for herself. [104] Ms Powell was concerned that Ben had been weaned, because it is easier, cheaper and healthier to keep breastfeeding. She carried out a baby check on Ben.
Ms Fitzpatrick ran into Amber at a Caltex Service Station around this time. She was in the front seat of a small 4-wheel drive. They had a conversation about their babies in which Amber said her baby, (then three months old), was "doing well and talking". [105] Ms Fitzpatrick thought that odd as three month old babies do not "talk".
Stella last saw Amber at Carinya Downs when Amber visited. Stella stated in her evidence that she asked her to come back but Amber said no. Stella alleged that Amber told her that she "can't stay long" and that she couldn't come and see them "because they - he's very angry with me", referring to Robert. I do not know if what Stella reported Amber to have said is true, or it was Stella's interpretation of Amber saying that Robert disapproved of her seeing them.
Stella claimed that she told police that Amber was welcome to return and live at Carinya Downs any time and that she should stay away from Robert and Anne. Stella also said that she felt that since Amber lived with the Geeves, she was hungry and looked dirty and unhealthy, but Ben looked healthy.
Jacqui last saw Amber at the IGA carpark in May 2002. Amber asked Jacqui if she was going to hit Anne while Anne was carrying Ben at the Mill Tavern, and Jacqui told her that she would not.
On 23 May 2002, Amber spoke to Centrelink and provided a phone number for contact, being the Geeves' number at Huntleigh, for a social worker interview.
Meanwhile, Geoffrey Haigh was becoming increasingly ill. He was admitted to Mt Druitt Hospital on 16 May 2002 with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver and on 23 May 2002 was discharged into Michael's care. On 27 May 2002, he was readmitted to Mt Druitt Hospital where he remained until he absconded on 11 June 2002 and did not return. [106] (He had discharged himself on 7 June 2002, but returned later that day). At some point around this time, "the uncle" (probably Michael) called Stella to tell her Geoffrey was in hospital, although Michael could not recall that.
Judith Khan said at the 2011 Inquest that she spoke on the phone to Amber and told her that her father was in Mt Druitt Hospital and "did not have much longer". [107] Ms Khan had also said that she thought Amber had the baby because she wanted to prove she could look after a baby and herself.
Patricia Haigh said in her 21 June 2002 statement that she had told Amber "two to three weeks ago that her father was in Mt Druitt Hospital", and she "should visit him". [108]
In early June, Stella asked Reuben Spicer to go to Huntleigh and tell Amber that her father was very ill and in hospital. Mr Spicer gave a statement to police in 2002, [109] saying that he was driven to Huntleigh by Ray, and that he told Robert to give Amber a message that her father was in hospital, dying.
Mr Spicer said that he saw Amber a few days later near "Woolies", although he does not identify where or what he meant by "Woolies" and that he asked if she had got the message passed on, but he "could not hear" Amber's answer.
Mr Spicer was dead by the time of the trial and so the defence were unable to cross-examine him on the things he asserted, or to question him in respect of other matters surrounding these two important events. This is another witness to which s 165B of the Evidence Act applies as an area of forensic examination now closed to the accused due to the delay in the prosecution.
Sometime in May 2002, Amber visited the Lachlan Travel Agency to show her baby to Helen Mackie. Ms Mackie said Amber was very happy and came in with a lady who appeared to be looking after Amber. This was about a fortnight before Ms Mackie saw the reports that Amber was missing.
In late May 2002, Angelina saw Amber at the Clarke Street flats. She looked like she had been crying. Robert had visited and they had had an argument. Once he left, Angelina checked to see if Amber was okay and she said she was.
The last time Cindy Brown saw Amber, Amber was with Anne Geeves and it was some time in late May 2002. Her baby was not there, and they were in front of the Credit Union in Young. Amber said she would come around and visit, but did not. Cindy was not sure of the date that this occurred.
On 29 May 2002, Lisa Parker saw Amber for the last time on the main street in Young. They spoke briefly about their babies.
On 29 May 2002, Amber had sessions at the YCHC with Ms Richens and Ms Powell. Amber reported that she was living between Anne and Robert's and her flat in Young, and this was working well. Amber said she was having some contact with her aunt and cousin and was able to access her own finances. She was happy with her current situation and would contact for another appointment for Ben and herself. There were also separate notes of the baby check, noting that Ben appeared well cared for and with a plan to have his immunisations "this week".
Amber dated some handwritten notes that were found on execution of a search warrant at Huntleigh in a notebook [110] found in her room. A note dated 30 May 2002 reads as follows: "Ben is the best baby in the world. Ben I love you so very much you are so verry [sic] good looking too don't forget mumm [sic] and mum and daddy love you very much"
Another note dated 31 May 2002 reads as follows: "Ben I see you a sleep you look like your daddy. You wore [sic] laying with your mum. I know you love your mum some time's I somethimes [sic] I think you love her more then me and I feel like I'm your sister not your mummy. I know one than your mum love's you like her real son not her step son. We all love you my son of min. Love mummy"
Another note also dated 31 May 2002: "On your daddy birthday we was going to get your done but you mum said to me if you put it off unto a never day I will be there so I said ok but she didn't go on that day, but we took your daddy to Mc's on your daddy's birthday. I do love you Ben my son of mine. Love mummy."
Another note found at Huntleigh authored by Amber is undated but must have been written after her baby was born and before she went missing, that sets out her conflicted feelings about her situation: "HOW do I feel about living here. I feel like I'm not Ben's mummy because I feel like I can't dress him or anything. I feel like I can't go to town if I do I got to be here within 2 hours or Anne will get the shit's. I can't go to Jackie or Stella's because the [sic] both get the shits. I can't go to Sydney because they don't want me to go. I can't stay at my own home with Ben for one night because they get upset. I thing on sunday Ben and I will go to town and stay the night."
In May 2002, Amber, Ben and Robert attended a photographer at Classique Studios and family photos were taken. [111] In his opening the Prosecutor said that this photography session took place on 30 May 2002, although no evidence was led identifying that date.
On Tuesday 2 June 2002, Leon Henry saw Amber at the Clarke Street flat. She was with Robert in her flat. She said she couldn't stop as she was too busy.
Angelina also saw Amber at Clarke Street on this day, around 9:00am.
On 5 June 2002 at 8:48pm, a pension payment day, Amber's bank records indicate that at an ATM in Queen Street, Campbelltown, a balance inquiry was made, followed less than a minute later by a cash withdrawal of $500.00, leaving the account with a balance of $10.52.

The accuseds' account of events - the report to police and the ERISPs

(i) Background matters

Before turning to the Geeves' account of the events of 5 June 2002, some background matters that emerged from the evidence need to be stated. Robert and Anne married in 1982. Their son Robbie was born in November 1982. There was some marital disharmony and Anne and Robbie moved to town away from Robert between 1988 and early 1994. Robbie said that there was discussion about having another baby after Emma was not born alive in 1994. He thought both his parents wanted another baby, but his mother spoke of it more than his father. Robbie gave evidence at the trial with a quiet determination. He remains estranged from his parents.
There is nothing in the evidence or in Anne's extensive medical files that suggest that Anne wanted a baby or was pursuing a pregnancy after 1994. What her medical records do disclose is that Anne was often physically unwell with a number of illnesses including serious kidney disease.
There is some ambiguity around Anne's presence with Amber in February 1998 when her pregnancy to Paul Harding was the subject of discussion at YCHC and the fact that Amber was scared to return to Stella's house. There is no basis however to reach some sinister conclusion that Anne was doing anything other than assisting Amber with access to available health services in town, so that she could be counselled about the pregnancy and helped with the situation she found herself in, 15 years old and pregnant to an older cousin who also lived where she was then living.

(ii) Report to police - 19 June 2002

According to Constable Belinda Durham's contemporaneous note and COPS entry, at 6:30pm on 19 June 2002, Robert and Anne attended Young Police Station to report a concern for Amber's welfare. Robert told her that Amber was taken to Campbelltown railway station on 5 June 2002 at 8:30pm by him and his wife as she wanted to go to Sydney to visit her sick father at Mt Druitt Hospital, and she had not contacted them since. She had epilepsy and took medication with her. Robert knew of no seizure since her living with them. He told SC Durham that Amber did not leave any contact details as to where she was going to stay or where she was going from Campbelltown railway station. Robert told police that this was not unusual and she had gone to Sydney on two other occasions before having the baby and done the same thing, not contacting him for weeks and just turning up at home again.
Police contacted Mt Druitt Hospital and were told that Geoffrey had been discharged on 11 June 2002.
Police made further inquiries with neighbours at Clarke Street and with Amber's family, none of whom had seen her since before 5 June 2002.

(iii) "Recorded statement" of Robert Geeves - 25 June 2002

On the evening of 25 June 2002, SC Price and DSC Coles interviewed Robert, followed by Anne. [112]
Robert said that the Saturday before they took her to Sydney, Reuben Spicer came up to the house and told him that Amber's dad was sick in hospital. Amber did not seem overly worried although Robert suggested that she should go. By Wednesday, Amber had decided that she wanted to go on the train. Robert said he would drive her. He explained that none of the family liked him, so Amber said not to drop her at anyone's place.
Robert mentioned stopping on the way to feed the baby and have a cigarette, getting fuel and continuing to Campbelltown. At Campbelltown, they stopped at a service station and asked for directions to the main street for Amber to get out her money. He walked from the car to about twelve feet from Amber while she got her money out, drove back to the railway station and dropped her off in the carpark at the station. He said Amber wasn't sure whether she wanted to see her dad or not, but she didn't want to get into trouble with the family for not going down to see him.
He explained that Amber did not want to take Ben with her because she thought if she had him with her, the family would want her to stay down there and she did not want to do that.
Robert described what she was wearing, and that she had a striped bag "of a similar material that old woolpacks are made out of" and that although he did not look at what was in it, she religiously carried a photo album, phone book and her medication. He said that she had a mobile phone but had lost the charger.
In response to a question asking what made them come in to report Amber missing on the 19th, he said that going into the second week he became concerned. He didn't want to come to the police due to the fact that Amber just didn't like police. He said that he contacted DoCS either the Monday or Tuesday before the 19th (i.e. 17 or 18 June 2002), to make an appointment to talk to one of the workers for some advice about what to do, but had been told by Ms Thompson's supervisor that he had to "go through the channels, you know". (I note that Ms Thompson's supervisor was Jade Wynn, and she confirmed in her evidence that this may well have occurred although she made no note at the time). [113]

(iv) "Recorded statement" of Anne Geeves - 25 June 2002

In her 25 June 2002 interview, Anne was asked "to tell the full circumstances surrounding Amber going missing". Anne said that Amber received a message that her father was ill in hospital. Amber wanted to go down and see him. She wanted the Geeves to take her down to Sydney. Anne said that they had to wait until Robert got home from work a bit after 4:00pm on Wednesday. She described going to a hot dog place at a service station to get Amber a hot dog so that she could take her Epilim. They then took Amber to an ATM to get money out, "her pension", then back to the railway station and dropped her off there. They drove in the Pajero and went down the highway then stopped for fuel in Yass and stopped to change the baby just out of Yass. When asked where Amber was going, Anne replied that Amber didn't exactly know whether she was going on the train or going to ring one of her uncles.
Anne described the circumstances of Amber coming to live with the Geeves "two years ago" as Amber was having trouble where she was living. Her cousin "kept having sex with her and she got pregnant"; "they made her have an abortion", and "the aunty used to take all the money off her when she got her pension" and "make her do all the housework and stuff like that. She was just sick of it".
Anne described Robert picking up Amber from Sydney at her mother's around Amber's 18th birthday (November 2000) because her mother "didn't want her down there". She described not liking the idea of Amber being pregnant to Robert - "she [Amber] didn't know any better; he did", but she and Amber got on "pretty good". Anne said she thought that Amber felt that she was a mother figure and told Anne that Anne had done more for her than her mother did.
Anne said she and Robert reported Amber missing because it had been just a bit too long for her to be away from Ben. She said that they were getting worried and had no one to ring up to find out because they didn't have any numbers. Anne said she thought Amber was "in Sydney somewhere".
Anne described Amber having difficulty waking up in the night to feed Ben, so Anne took on that task. She repeated that Amber loved the baby, but needed help and would sleep for long periods, often not waking until 2:00pm.
Anne said that she thought that Amber would be away for a week at the most. She observed that Amber had been away in Sydney before. Just after Ben was born, she "took off and didn't say anything about going" and was gone for a week or two. Anne confirmed Amber had not been away from Ben for more than a couple of hours here and there, and never overnight. Amber had "let the phone go". Anne did not speak to Amber's family: "I had dealings with her dad when... he came up here in January. That was enough".
Anne said that Amber didn't take Ben because she was worried that he would get hepatitis from her dad. She said that she didn't want her dad to go near him because the last time when she went to Sydney, "he didn't want to know her": "called her gutter slut or gutter trash or something like that", and didn't want to see Ben, so Amber said she'd just go there and see what he was like first.
Anne was asked some questions about Amber's personality. She described her as "a bit unusual", moody, and that Anne thought the Epilim "made her mind a little bit stranger than most of us". She described Amber "sit[ting] down and watch[ing] TV and doesn't know anyone's around". She could get cranky and fly off the handle for no reason at times and wasn't always happy. Anne described being worried when they found the "suicide note" three months prior when Amber went to Sydney, and so they went to DoCS to see if they could see where she was.
Anne was asked about Amber's bank accounts and said that she thought Amber only had one with the Credit Union and had closed all the other ones.
Anne explained that although Robert had picked Amber up from her mother's at Rooty Hill in November 2000, Amber's mother had moved since and did not want Amber to know where she was because Amber caused trouble with her dad, and he had gone and damaged her mother's car.

(v) Robert's ERISP - 18 July 2002

On 18 July 2002, both Robert and Anne were interviewed again at Young Police Station.
Robert's interview with DSC Coles and SC Price began at 6:36pm and Anne's with DSC Priest and DSC West began at 6:40pm. While the interviews were taking place, listening devices were placed in the Geeves' Pajero and at Huntleigh. It is evident that part of the role of the interviews was to promote discussion between Robert and Anne and to record those discussions by use of the listening devices.
Robert was asked to read and confirm the transcript of his 25 June 2002 interview which he did, pointing out a few errors. He was asked more questions about the trip to Campbelltown and whether he had driven Amber to Sydney before.
He was asked about "control of Amber's finances": "Q83. Now, I want to ask you some questions in relation to Amber's financial situation. I've been informed that you in fact had control of Amber's finances. What do you tell me about that? A. No. No control whatsoever. Q84. I've been informed that when Amber withdrew money from an automatic teller machine - - - A. Yes. Q85. - - - that she gave the money to you to disperse out to her for baby's clothes, etcetera. A. On very rare occasions. Q86. How often would that happen? A. Probably three, three or four times in the last, since her 18th birthday. I'd only take it when she insisted. I need it next week or something along those lines um, if I've got it, I'll spend it, can you hold it. There was another occasion when she got a loan from the credit union, I think it was um, that was very early this year, probably January um, she got a loan from the credit union, and she gave me that money to hold for her. Q87. How much was that? A. She got a loan, the loan was $1,000. She gave me $700. Q88. Now, the reason behind that firstly, whose idea was it for you to have the money? A. The - - - Q89. $700. A. That was Amber's idea. She didn't want her father spending it, it was when her father was here. Q90. Has it ever been suggested by you for her to hand over her money for you to keep? A. Never. Never um, before Amber had Ben, when Amber was at home before she had a flat, she was paying rent. She paid that to Anne, board um, occasions when she was, she had a flat in Clarke Street. She still spent a lot of time out home um, she didn't pay rent at that stage. We didn't touch her money. Q91. Since January, and the incident you're talking about with the $700 - - - A. Yes. Q92. - - - have you ever taken money from her to keep for her? A. No um, she, she'd lent money to her neighbours at the flats um, I think it was $30. She got me to hold that 'til she got to Woollies. She put it in my pocket when she got it from the neighbours. They returned the money to her. Q93. What neighbours were they? A. Daphne Henry. Q94. Did you have access to her credit union key card? A. No. Q95. Have you had access to her credit union key card PIN number, that is her personal identification number? A. No. Q96. Are you aware of her PIN number? A. No." [114]
He was asked to comment on Amber telling people that he tied her up: "Q113. I've been informed that Amber has told certain people that when she was pregnant with Ben, that you tied her up and demanded to know who the father of the baby was. What do you say about that? A. I think that's a pack of lies. It is a pack of lies. Q.114. Did that ever happen? A. No. Q.115. Did you ever ask her who the father of the baby was? A. I did comment to her once, I said, I am the father, ain't I? And she said, Yes, I haven't been with anyone 'til, you know, she, she did say a time, I think it was a time she was in Sydney months before." [115]
Robert explained that Anne had had five or six miscarriages over 14 years and a stillborn child nine years prior. He confirmed that he did want another child, and that Anne did too up until she was about 33 or 34.
He denied disapproving of Amber having the termination of the pregnancy to Paul Harding, stating that: "I thought it was the best thing she could do". He denied that he and Anne told Amber at the hospital that they would take the baby off her if Amber didn't look after it saying: "I'll deny that one hands down, it's a straight out lie. I wouldn't say it to her, her mind was too fragile. That the exact reason we weren't going to take the child off her, um, if Ben was taken off Amber, Amber would end up in a mental institution or commit suicide". [116]
Robert was questioned about the 4 January 2002 agreement. He said: "A. … Amber wanted an agreement signed that I wouldn't take Ben um, her father was present when this was written and signed um, it was written and signed at the Mill Tavern. I thought, you know, Amber's father and Amber wanted an agreement signed that I wouldn't take Ben off Amber and I thought, well, I want a bit of the agreement too and the reason I didn't want the child near Paul Harding is that he's a total ratbag, a thief, a liar and a few other things. Any children that Stella Nealon has had anything to do with the rearing of, appear to have problems um, Ray Skeeta Harding is just a continual liar. Lies about things all the time. I don't like the bloke. Um, Jackie Cash, another reason there. After Ben was born, and was nursing Ben in the tavern, and Jackie Cash was going to slam Anne um, I didn't see any of those people in that agreement, fit people for any baby or child to be near." [117]
There was then the following series of questions: "Q155. Can you tell me when that agreement was made, did you have intentions of taking the baby if it was in fact broken? A. No. Q156. Can you tell me why the agreement was made? A. Her father appeared to have made a special trip up here to want an agreement signed um - - - Q157. An agreement signed in relation to what? A. To me taking Ben off Amber. Um, I had no intention of taking Ben off Amber, I still haven't um, I just can't see any of those people mentioned below there being fit people to have the child near. I've seen 'em fight there. I've seen ah, you know, one of them was holding a knife once, and the other went to him 'em. Got cut, and - - - Q158. Why would Amber's father and Amber feel that you were going to take Ben off them? A. I've got no, I've got no idea. I, I personally think that the seed was planted in Amber's mind by Stella Nealon. Q159. When Ben was born, did you want custody of him? A No. Q160. Did Anne want custody of Ben? A. No. Q161. What was Amber's attitude towards Ben when he was born? A. She nursed him, she seemed O.K. Q162. I've been informed in February of this year, right, that you and your wife attended your son's address with Ben. It's been alleged that after your son told your wife, Anne, that he wanted nothing to do with Ben (TAPE BEEPING) that she stated, haven't you ever heard of a surrogate mother. I'll be the mother of him, because Amber couldn't cope with looking after him. What do you say about that? A. What was that date again? Q163. It was in February of this year. A. It was in February. Yes ah, Ben, myself, and Anne drove to my son's address which was in Murringo Street. I'm not sure of the number um, I didn't go to the door first. Anne took Ben to the door um, my son's girlfriend slammed the door in Anne's face. I got a little bit, I didn't like that idea um, I know it was the wrong thing to do, but I went. My son had come to the door in the meantime. I got to the door and I told my son, if ever the door got slammed in his mother's face, that I'd just poke the chair that's on the verandah through the door, through the window actually, and I'd step inside um, no one including um, my son's girlfriend will slam doors in my wife's face um, Anne was invited inside after that. No, I'm not sure about that. I think Anne was invited inside. I just walked back to the vehicle. I'd already said too much and done too much relationship damage saying things I'd said. As far as um, Anne saying that, I presume, was it Anne that was supposed to have said something - - - Q164. I'll read it out again. We're going to have to change the tapes again shortly. I'll just read this out to you. It's alleged that Anne stated, Haven't you ever heard of a surrogate mother? And I'll be the mother of him, because Amber couldn't cope with looking after him. A. I, I can't, I can't really imagine Anne saying that. No." [118]
Robert was asked about surrogacy: "Q170. O.K. Does Anne consider herself to be the surrogate mother of Ben? A. I don't think so. Q171. I'll just turn that police radio down. Now, continuing on. Anne has indicated, right, that, basically that Amber is mummy of Ben, and that Anne is classified as mum to Ben, and that's the way that Amber wanted it known. A. Yes. Q172. That is correct, is it? A. Yeah, that's correct. Q173. Does Anne consider herself to be the mum of Ben? A. She looks after him very well um, I, I don't really know whether she considers herself to be his mum or not. I, I don't know that. I can't answer that one." [119]
Robert denied that he had ever told Amber he would take Ben. In terms of seeking custody, there was the following sequence of questions: "Q193. Have you made any inquiries in regard to getting legal custody of Ben? A. Nuh um, I have actually. [REDACTED] Q194. [REDACTED] A. [REDACTED] Q195. Is it the case you wish to keep custody of Ben? A. It's my wish that Amber would get her arse home and look after him. Q196. Is it your wish that if Amber is not located, that you keep custody of Ben? A. Amber will be home, I'm convinced of that. Q197. What makes you convinced of that? A. She'll be back. She, she will be back. Q198. Why do you say that? A. Gut feeling." [120]

(vi) Anne's ERISP - 18 July 2002

Anne was asked to read and confirm her previous interview. She was then asked whether anyone else could support their version that the Geeves took Amber to Campbelltown. Anne noted that they had told Allan Payne, Robert's boss, that Robert was tired after driving Amber to Campbelltown and back and Robert took the following day off work.
Anne described how Robert had called DoCS and spoke to "the head, head person wouldn't let Robert speak to Jacqui Thompson. She said it was a closed, closed book". She also explained that there would have been no point checking at the Clarke Street flats because Amber had not been there for a long time and had been at the Geeves and that she had fallings out with her neighbours pretty often.
Anne explained that Amber didn't take Ben on this occasion because of troubles with Amber's father. An AVO had been taken out when he came up just before Amber had Ben and her father nearly got her evicted. He wasn't too pleased with the AVO and went back to Sydney. When Amber went to Sydney just after Ben was born, her dad didn't want to know her. Amber was also scared that Ben would get hepatitis. Anne said that Amber had had him tested for that through either Dr Sullivan or Dr Sevier.
Regarding Amber's banking and money arrangements the following was said: "Q193. Now she banks with who? A. Credit Union. Q194. Which one is that? A. It's South West Credit Union up the top end of the street. Q195. Now you said in your previous interview that she had other account at the, she closed all the other ones? A. Yes. Q196. Who was the other accounts with? A. She had accounts with nearly every bank. The Commonwealth she had, had the pension through the Commonwealth Bank and then she changed it to the Credit Union 'cause she wanted a loan. When she first came up to our place she had National Bank, ANZ I think, yeah. Q197. And she closed all those and then kept with the Credit Union? A. Yeah. Q198. Was that by her own choice or your choice? A. It wasn't my choice. Q199. Was it Robert's choice? A. No. Q200. That's her own choice, was it? A. It was her choice 'cause she wanted to get some things for the house before Ben came. Q201. Is that the reason for the loan? A. Yes." [121]
Further questions were asked relating to "Amber's finances": "Q341. How would you describe Amber's finances? A. Finances? Q342. Yes. Controlling her finances herself. A. Ah, she would spend her money fairly fast. Q343. Would it be fair to say that both you and Robert more or less controlled the finances? A. No. Q344. No? A. No. Q345. Well, I have received information that Robert said that he keeps her money because she only wastes it and pay off her bills. A. That was when she was in town. She, she wanted him to, when she got the loan out 'cause her dad was there at this stage, um she said to Robert to take it home because he, he'd already got $300 out of her. That's when he came out and abused us and I took the AVO out on him 'cause he wanted Amber's money and we said, No. And so, I think it was the next day or the day after, a couple of days after that, I went into town with her and got her all the stuff she needed for her flat before her father took the money. Q346. Are you aware if or I'll say again, have you ever withdrew money out of her account - - - A. No. Q347. - - - on her behalf? A. No. Q348. Has your husband? A. No. Q349. Are you aware of Amber's PIN number? A. No. Q350. Do you have access to, have you ever had access to her cards? A. No. Q351. Are you aware if your husband has ever had access? A. No. Q352. You are not aware, or you know? A. I know 'cause I wouldn't give her mine so why would I ask for hers?" [122] And at 373-376: "Q373. In relation to Amber's finances again I received information that you said words to the effect of, we manage the finances for Amber, and she doesn't have to pay board. We mind the money for her. A. That she doesn't have to pay board? Q374. Board. We mind the money for her. A. Did I say, did I? Q375. I am asking. This isn't in the interview. This is information I have received. A. No. I know that (inaudible) at our place, when she first came out there, she was paying board. Yeah. And she looked after her own money. She just paid her board and used what she wanted out of her own money. Q376. Well, what about the situation that, we manage her finances for Amber? A. No, we don't." [123]
I interpolate here that Amber's bank records indicate that on 9 January 2002, at the Mill Tavern, cash withdrawals were made of $20.00, $300.00, $400.00 and $90.00. [124]
Later in the interview, Anne was asked these questions in the context of inquiring what happened with the money Amber took out of the ATM on 5 June 2002 at Campbelltown: "Q395. Did you see what she done with the money when she withdrew it from the ATM? A. I'd say she put it in her wallet. Q396. You didn't see that? A. No, I didn't see her put it in there, no. Q397. Are you aware if Robert took any of that money? A. No. We had our own money. Q398. Do you know what she was going to do with that $500 or whatever, do you know how much it was? A. I don't know how much it was, no. Q399. Yes. It was $500. A. Right. Q400. Do you know what she done with it or what she was going to spend it for? A. Well, I don't know. She buys a lot of, a lot of rubbish. Q402. She didn't say what she was going to do with that money? A. No, no. Well, that would of kept her going for the fortnight hopefully. Q403. Are you aware if Amber normally gives Robert some money out of her fortnightly pension or welfare to look after her, pay the bills, so on and so on? A. To look after her? Q404. Yes. A. No." [125]
Anne was asked about Amber's intellect: "Q267. There's not too long to go. Now would you best describe Amber's intellect? A. Intellect? Like, how her head works and that or what? Q268. Well - - - A. She - - - Q269. If you were to give her, give her an age. A. An age. Q270. She's 19. A. Yeah. Q271. But mentally what would she be? A. I dunno. Q272. Has she got the brain of a 19-year-old? A. Most of the time I'd say she would, yeah. Q273. What would you say if I was to propose that she had, that she was slightly intellectually disabled? A. Yeah. Q274. Would you agree with that? A. Yeah. Q275. And would you say that she had the mental capacity of a person some years younger than what her, what she actually is? A. Depends on what, say if she watches too much TV, she goes strange, strange. But most of the time I think she knows what she does what she's doing, she's doing and that. She's old, you know, I - - - Q276. Would you expect her behaviour to be similar to someone a number of years than what she is? A. What younger than herself? Q277. Yes. A. Sometimes." [126]
Anne denied ever threatening to take the baby from Amber. She had been made aware of the allegation that Robert had tied Amber's hands together to find out the truth of who the baby's actual father was from the statement from [REDACTED].
Anne was asked some questions about surrogacy in the following exchange, where there seemed to be a misunderstanding as to what she was being asked: "Q317. I received information that the following comment was made by yourself. Have you ever- haven't you ever heard of a surrogate mother? A. Yes, I have. Q318. Have you said that? A. Well, I said that I've heard of a surrogate mother. Q319. No, have you said that, in reference to Amber being a surrogate mother for Ben? A. No. I'm 42 years old. I don't need babies." [127]
Anne was asked this series of questions about whether Amber's pregnancy to Robert was planned: "Q405. Are you aware if Amber's pregnancy with Ben was planned? A. Planned? Q406. Planned. A. I'm not sure. Probably wasn't planned. Could have been. She always wanted a baby so. Q407. Has she? A. Yeah. Q408. What comments has she been making? A. Well, when she had the abortion the last time, she, she never got over that. Q409. In what way? A. She was very um, very distressed over it. Yeah. 'Cause they made her, made her do it. She just didn't get over it." [128]
Anne was then asked directly "Do you want custody of Ben" and replied as follows: "Q432. O.K. Do you want custody of Ben? A. If Amber does not come back, maybe. But I'll, I'm, it depends on the courts anyway. Yeah. Q433. Well, let's forget about the courts. Do you want custody of Ben if Amber hasn't come back? A: If Amber doesn't come back, I would like him 'cause she's always asking me to look after him but I'm hoping she'll come back before I, I'm getting old. Come on, come on. Yeah. Q434. Have you ever wanted custody of Ben over Amber while she was still here? A. No. No. I know what it's like to lose a baby and I wouldn't put anyone through that. Like I had too many, done it myself. Come on darl, come on. Q435. Is it the, I have received information that you had a conversation with the - - - A. Come on. Q436. I received information that you had a conversation with your son, Robert. A. My son, Robert, yeah. Q437. And during that conversation a, the word, surrogate mother was used by you. A. By me? Q438. By you. A. O.K. Q439. What can you tell me about that? A. I told him, told him at the time that I would consider it but at this stage I'm too old for that anyway. … DETECTIVE SENIOR CONSTABLE PRIEST Q441. Do you consider yourself to be a surrogate mother for him? A. To be a surrogate mother for him? I'm just there looking after him till Amber comes back. That's all I'm doing." [129]
It was put to Anne that she and Robert caused Amber's disappearance so they could bring Ben up as their own. Anne denied that. Anne also denied that Amber had expressed any intention to harm herself, "when she was going, no".
Anne was asked what she wanted in terms of long-term custody for Ben and answered: "Q361. What is your situation now as far as Ben - - - A. Ben. Q362. - - - as far as custody in the long term? A. The long term? Q363. Yes. A. There's no, I don't know what, what's gunna happen with his custody though. Q364. What would you like to happen? A. What would I like to happen? I'd like Amber to come home and look after him. Q365. If that doesn't eventuate - - - A. Yeah. Q366. - - - what would you like to happen with Ben? A. (inaudible) Q367. Sorry? A. I don't know. We'll have to wait and see what happens. I don't know. I wouldn't like him to go to her family 'cause they don't look after their kids very well. Q368. Is it the case that you want to bring him up yourself? A. No, no. Q369. No? A. No. Q370. What about Robert? A. Well, Robert, Robert's his father, yeah, I suppose he (inaudible)." [130]

The police investigation

It is evident that in the almost 20 years between the account given by the accused and their arrest in May 2022, focus of police was on attempting to discredit the accuseds' version of events.
On 12 July 2002, inquiries were made at the Caltex service station at Queen Street, Campbelltown. The owner of the food van, Mr Haliloglu, was spoken to. He indicated that his brother was working that night. His brother was spoken to some months later by phone and indicated, according to the police investigator's note from late 2002, that whilst he could not recall an enquiry being made for directions to an ATM, it may have happened, but he cannot remember. He did remember a "drag queen" asking for directions. He was not shown photos of Mr Geeves and Amber until some years later.
The manager at Pontianak Vineyard was spoken to, Allan Payne. He confirmed that he had received a phone call from Robert at about 9:30pm to 11:00pm on 5 June 2002 telling him he had taken Amber to Campbelltown to catch a train to see her father who was ill, but that Robert felt "he was not as young as [he] used to be" and did not think he could drive home that night and might be late to work the following day. Mark Apps, the casual worker supervisor at the vineyard confirmed that Robert had worked on 5 June 2002 7:00am to 3:30pm. Phone records confirm that there was a call from the Geeves landline to the vineyard the next morning at 6:46am and Robert did not attend work that day, 6 June 2002, but attended late on 7 June 2002 after explaining there were sheep on the road.
On 24 June 2002, a search warrant was executed at Amber's flat and various items were seized.
[REDACTED]
Product from the listening device placed in the Geeves' Pajero on 18 July 2002 was monitored and any matters of interest extracted and transcribed. The focus of the listening device material taken from the Pajero and tendered was confined to recordings made on 18 July 2002 only, whereas the material tendered from the listening device(s) installed at Huntleigh monitored conversations between 18 July 2002 and 11 August 2002.
On 19 July 2002, Det (Tech) Manuel Rivera attended Harden Police Station to forensically examine the Pajero. He found blood on a lamb marking tool which was later confirmed to be Anne's blood.
On 29 July 2002, Detective Sergeant Gaetano Crea and Senior Constable Greg Coles attended Huntleigh and asked for consent to search Amber's bedroom, which Robert gave. [131]
On 8 August 2002 at 7:00am, an extensive search was conducted at Huntleigh pursuant to a search warrant. The search involved 23 police personnel and possibly a cadaver dog, with additional crime scene officers on standby, and continued until 4:26pm. [132]
In the period leading up to the execution of that search warrant, the officer then in charge of the investigation, DS Crea, contacted DoCS to agitate for DoCS to take Ben from the Geeves. He had a belief that given the "history" of Robert's behaviour, and the proposed application of mounting pressure upon Robert, the child was more at risk and that it was "unpredictable" how the Geeves were likely to react.
Jade Tomlin gave evidence about these matters, confirming that she believed, based on the material available to her, that the baby was not at risk and was well cared for, healthy and happy, and if the Police wished to have the child removed, the Police should do so based on their emergency removal powers under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act and to prepare their own affidavit evidence.
I observe that DS Crea was quick in his evidence to malign DoCS as "uncooperative", essentially it seems because they would not do what he wanted. [133]
Ultimately, DoCS staff attended at the request of police to provide transport only. An email from Glynis Ingram to Jade Tomlin, (and cc'ed to others), confirmed that they would meet the police at the gate only and therefore the removal of Ben was a Police removal not a DoCS removal.
DS Crea presented as a supremely confident individual who was not prepared to let evidence get in the way of his own belief as to whom he thought was responsible for Amber's disappearance. He had decided that "there was ample evidence to suggest that Robert Geeves controlled [Amber's] finances", [134] that Mr Geeves "controlled an intellectually disabled child and had a sexual relationship" with her and had a particular "criminal history" (although he had been acquitted of any charges), which formed the basis of DS Crea's suspicions that Robert Geeves was "capable" of Amber's murder. [135] He also formed the view that Anne Geeves was the "mastermind" although he was not able to identify any basis for this conclusion. [136] Regardless, he acknowledged that by the time he left the investigation in 2008, his view was that police did not have enough evidence to charge either person. He did not identify any other suspect as being investigated.
The next OIC was (now) Chief Inspector David Cockram who exhibited a rather more understated and considered style. He was measured and thoughtful in his responses. He gave evidence that he had identified Mr Geeves' history of alleged criminal behaviour as a "point of interest", but denied that in the early stages of the missing persons investigation police were trying to build a case against the Geeves. He confirmed that he carried out an extensive review of the case material, including reading the statements and listening to listening device material from the house recorded in July and August 2002. He also considered audio enhancements of the audio product. There was forensic testing on the Pajero and later forensic testing on the Suzuki Sierra vehicle. Chief Inspector Cockram confirmed that the search at Huntleigh on 8 August was comprehensive and conducted over six hours. The operational orders [137] described the "mission" as to conduct an extensive search of the property, house and sheds situated on the property Huntleigh for the body or remains of the missing person, and to locate any evidence of participation in the disappearance of the missing person by either "target", i.e. Mr or Mrs Geeves.
The listening device recordings were scrutinised by attending police officers to identify and extract any snippet of conversation which they considered to be sinister or relevant. Whilst this approach is understandable, it has contextual limits and in the case of this particular listening device product, comprising exhibits 122 and 123, the sound quality was extremely poor. Counsel were able to agree on a certain amount of transcript of what the exhibits recorded but obviously the evidence is what I hear on the recordings as the tribunal of fact, as opposed to what is suggested in the transcript.
I have carefully listened to all of the listening device product tendered. I formed the view that there was nothing in the recorded material that implicated either accused in any kind of foul play. There was no evidence of "manufacturing" explanations for their movements, or any suggestion of, or reflections about, any illegal or abusive activity in relation to Amber. I reject the Crown's submission, blithely made, that the snippets of conversation extracted can be interpreted as the accused getting their stories straight or putting their heads together to provide an account. On the contrary, they had already provided their account to police on 19 June, 25 June, and again on 18 July 2002 before the listening devices were installed. It is unsurprising that they discussed and evaluated the accusations that were made to them by police during their 18 July 2002 interviews, and that over the ensuing days they occasionally circled back to discuss again the assertions the interviewing police had made to each of them.
It is unsurprising that after the execution of the search warrant on 8 August 2002, the seizing of various personal items, and the removal by police of baby Ben, that the Geeves would be upset and would discuss what had happened during the police search, and puzzle together as to why police seized the items that they did from the house and the vehicles, and why certain questions were asked of the accused persons whilst the search took place. Having listened to those additional recordings made on 8 August 2002 and following, it is evident that that is the tone and content of what is being discussed. Anne was concerned Police took Ben because "it was dirty in the bedrooms and that" [138] . I do not infer, as the Crown suggests I should, that these discussions are making up explanations or excuses, or revealing a guilty mind.
The folly entailed in the Crown's approach to this listening device material is illustrated by the exercise undertaken by the Crown to identify parts of the recorded material the Crown asserts is "clearly" the Geeves discussing Amber in the past tense, and so is evidence that the Geeves knew Amber was dead.
As demonstrated below by the written submissions of Mr King, an equal (if not greater) amount of the ERISP and listening device material extracted from the same recordings, speaks about Amber in the present tense.
The following edits were extracted from the ERISPs by the Crown: "She was living with us, yeah." [139] "… she was Mummy, and I was Mum." [140] "She - - - she loved him [Ben], yeah." [141] "… I didn't think she'd be away as long as she was." [142] "… she would spend her money fairly fast." [143] "Amber didn't like the police…." [144] "… she probably was gunna get a bigger place…." [145] "… Amber wasn't really into intimate relationships." [146] "She'd never let Ben have a wet nappy. She was fanatical about changing nappies…." [147] "… Amber wasn't the most reliable person." [148] "Amber didn't like DoCS." [149]
The same submission was made in respect of these extracts from the listening device material: "I am not going to turn my back after all that has happened, but we may lose him. But we can look after him mum. We just can't give him to that [REDACTED] the heroin addict." [150] "And Amber couldn't look after him (INAUDIBLE)." [151] "We did everything, we've done everything for Amber." [152] "I'll say it was Amber's but that, those medi - - - things she paid. We couldn't get it back and it's got Amber's name on it." [153] "I have said mum (INAUDIBLE) Amber (INAUDIBLE) she was mummy and I was mum." [154] "AG: If she was a fuckin' honest person, people would like her. Everywhere she went - - - RG: - - - she made enemies. AG: She shit on people." [155]
In response, Mr King pointed to the following examples where Anne had referred to Amber in the present tense during her ERISPs in June and July 2002: "More than likely she's in Sydney somewhere." [156] "Yeah, yeah. She won't cut her hair." [157] "But, you know, she, she still loves him." [158] "Oh, she needs a lot of help [as a mother]." [159] "'Cause she, she, you know, she does love him." [160] "…she gets to the TV or something like that and she, she just doesn't take any notice of anyone." [161] "She just loves sleeping in bed, I think." [162] "She goes to bed about half past 8." [163] "She's been away in Sydney before. Just after Ben was born she took off … [a]nd she was gone for a week…" [164] "She's moody. … She's just, I think with all the Epilum she takes that sort of her mind is a little bit stranger than most of us." [165] "She doesn't seem to, seem to be with it a lot. But she, you know, she, she does, she's ok, I'm not saying she's mad or anything ..." [166] "- - - you know, just the Epilum makes her a little bit strange in the head…" [167] "… like what I said, she sits down and she just watches TV…" [168] "She can get cranky at any, any time she, you know, can fly off the handle for no reason at times…" [169] "… she has writin' everywhere in her room…" [170] "I've no idea [what's happened to her]. She's probably just taking a break, I hope." [171] "I hope she comes home soon, 'cause I've gotta go to work." [172] "She writes notes, she shreds them, she does it with paper. She buys four newspapers of a weekend and cuts them up. What she doesn't use, she shreds." [173] "She takes any sort of thing out she likes and glues them into a book." [174] "I'd like Amber to come home and look after him [Ben]." [175] "I'm just there looking after him 'til Amber comes back." [176] "The last time I saw her was in Campbelltown and I'm just hoping that she's still down there somewhere and she'll come back." [177]
Mr King also provided multiple present tense references in the covertly recorded discussions between Anne and Robert extracted in the listening device material: "What you think she's gonna come back there and not come out home?" [178] "We did everything, we've done everything for Amber." [179] "(INAUDIBLE) start to realise that Amber's telling bullshit all the time once she gets some of this money." [180] "They are not telling her that she's staying out here. … Saying she's in town all the time." [181] "I said Amber is out there and she is not confident enough to handle it. And I am confident she is out there …" [182] "We have to fight for ourselves. Amber is on the top of the list though. … Well that's the way (INAUDIBLE) it's always worded. Dump the kids. Go away for a while and then come back. Same as this time down here (INAUDIBLE)." [183] "AG: If Amber knew what was going to happen, she would have rung by now. RG: Oh you would hope so." [184] "The only time that she got counselling was when we gave it to her. When we organised it for her. Now she goes and tells everyone that we're taking the, we're going to take Ben off her. I don't understand that'." [185] "(INAUDIBLE) She's gone around fucking spreading lies. … It's all her lies. … If she was a fuckin' honest person, people would like her. Everywhere she went - - - … she shit on people. … But then they are still lying for her. And they believed all her lies. … Now she has those stupid detectives fuckin' believing all her lies ..." [186] "Why would she walk down here? Had no contact after she left the hospital. The only contact we had when she left the hospital was when she walked down here. … Once the cops got her that first, they took her back up there, she stayed there … Well if she was lying about us two, that I don't fuckin' care. That lying she did to, to, to us in town that they told us about it. The family she was told to piss off from. Even when she was pregnant she was told to piss off and get help from someone else who cares. Well I don't care anymore. If she comes back - - - she can pack her stuff and go. I've had just about enough. I've had people go through all my stuff. Mucking all the house up. Breaking things. They broke things? … They went through the amount of stuff and this stuff, for nothing. I told them to fuckin' go easy on that. … Then crucify you for fuckin' nothing that you have done …." [187]
To conclude that these snatches of de-contextualised conversations are evidence of a guilty mind or guilty activities is nothing more than a grammatical game in which the Court should not and will not indulge. I have concluded that the listening device product tendered does not further the Crown case in any way, and the submission made argument by the Crown Prosecutor about the tense used in answers to questions in the ERISPs is of no merit.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
DoCs records indicated that after Ben was taken from the Geeves on 8 August 2002 they sought and regularly had supervised access to him in the following months where they were observed to be loving and appropriate and Ben responded well to them.
There was little in the way of evidence of police investigation between 2003 and 2011. An investigator's note of DI Price dated 10 August 2005 indicated that he had received information that Robert was having an affair with an Ursula Kirk, (Ursual O'Sioda at the time of the trial). DI Price's note recorded that he spoke to Ms Kirk on this date and that she had told him that she had met Robert through a TAFE course in around 2001, and that she had had a conversation with Robert in late 2001 about surrogacy in which she told him to forget about it, that it was illegal, and that Robert replied that he was going to make enquiries with a professional about "if it can happen". Ms Kirk also stated to DI Price, (according to his notes), that she did not know Amber, and that Robert had never discussed with her anything about Amber's disappearance. She told DI Price that as far as she knew, Amber was Robbie's girlfriend.
Ms Kirk was called to give evidence at the trial. She was asked whether she remembered any conversations with police in 2005. She could not give any specific recollection but acknowledged that it could have occurred and she could have forgotten it. She acknowledged that she had had discussions with Robert about all sorts of things and that surrogacy may well have been a general topic of conversation, but apart from that, she had no conversation with Robert about surrogacy or about him wanting more children. She denied saying to anyone in 2005 that Robert had told her that he wanted another child or that Robert wanted to find a surrogate mother. She said that she has no recollection of ever telling Robert that surrogacy was illegal.
Ms Kirk was a defensive, truculent and unimpressive witness. She accepted that she may have forgotten the conversation with DI Price in 2005 and the precise contents of it.
DI Price gave evidence that he had made a note of his discussion with Ms Kirk on the same day the discussion occurred. I have no basis to doubt the contents or accuracy of DI Price's note.
I am of the view that Ms Kirk was feigning lack of recollection of a conversation that she had with Robert at the end of 2001 about surrogacy, deliberately stating that the conversation was more general than it was and more general than she had been prepared to tell DI Price when he spoke to her in August 2005.
I note, however, that late 2001 is a time period when Robert would have already known Amber was pregnant with what he thought to be his baby. Questions about "surrogacy" and seeking professional advice about it, does not in any way add any relevant circumstance to the Crown's assertion that Amber was "used" as a surrogate, or that Robert was motivated to kill Amber so that he could keep her baby. The suggestion conveyed by the conversation Ms Kirk relayed, (in very broad terms), to DI Price in August 2005 was that Robert was prepared to pursue and understand the proper avenues for "surrogacy".
An Inquest was held in 2011 and the Deputy State Coroner returned an open finding. He referred the matter to the Unsolved Homicide Unit.
In 2018, DSC Amanda Cary commenced work on the investigation, renamed Strikeforce Villamar 2. DSC Cary gave evidence that she had listened to all of the listening device material and that she was able to hear things on the listening device discs that had not been previously transcribed, however no evidence was tendered that directed itself to these assertions by DSC Cary.
On 6 July 2021, a former Boorowa local, James Arber, contacted Crime Stoppers to tell them that he thought he saw Amber Haigh at a Mobil service station on a time and date unknown, but "may have been the end of May 2002". He was first spoken to on 9 August 2021 by DSC Cary for two hours. Her investigator's note [188] recorded that Mr Arber gave certain timings and details which later changed in significant and material respects by the time he signed his statement some months later.
On 23 August 2021, DSC Cary had another conversation with James Arber, [189] in which he provided other details in what appears to have been a genuine, but very misguided attempt, to "help" the police by altering the times and dates he had previously given to align them with the Crown case. The difficulty with all of this is that James Arber had said from the beginning that he had done a significant amount of googling and research on the Internet before he first contacted Crime Stoppers and had actually stated to DSC Cary that he "got the month as June from the 60 Minutes segment". [190] This was a reference to a 60 Minutes television special dealing with the disappearance of Amber in which Robbie Geeves, amongst other people, spoke about their beliefs as to what had happened.
James Arber's version of events was directed to whether the Geeves' account of their movements on 5 June 2002 could be true if they had visited James Arber's grandmother's home on that afternoon, given that James said he and his father Peter saw them an hour or two later at a local petrol station, which would not have been consistent with the Geeves account that they made the drive to Campbelltown between about 4:00pm and 8:30pm on 5 June 2002.
By the time DSC Cary came to take James' statement, over two further sessions spanning six hours, on 6 and 21 September 2021, as submitted by Mr King, DSC Cary should have known, (and in my opinion, did know), that James was putting things together to try and make his recollections fit with what he thought the Police wanted to hear, rather than actually having the recollection he professed to have.
Prior to receiving a signed copy of his statement from Queensland police, (James then lived in Queensland), DSC Cary travelled to Cowra and met with James' father, Peter, and took a statement from him dated 28 September 2021. That statement was concise and clear, and was obviously recalling the same occasions that James had been talking about, but recognised that the occasion the Geeves went to the Arber's with Amber and a baby was on a date "after 1999" but he recalled the baby with Amber was very young, and that on another day he visited the Geeves at Huntleigh, Amber was there with the baby. Peter also stated that it was on an entirely different day some days or weeks later that he and his son saw the Geeves at the service station in Boorowa. Peter died shortly before the trial. His statement was tendered by the Crown, despite its key differences with James' version of events. [191]
DSC Cary made an investigator's note on 3 November 2022, [192] further evaluating James Arber's back story which made it clear, for reasons I do not need to go into for the purposes of this judgment, that: "it is likely the encounter with James Arber was not on the 5/6/2002 and by the description of the baby, it could possibly have been on 19/2//2002", explaining further in that note the valid and persuasive reasons for her reaching that conclusion.
It is surprising that the Crown chose to call James Arber at all in circumstances where the Police's own investigation had catastrophically undermined, and in a key respect, disproved, his manipulated final statement.
Mr King took on the task of testing and deconstructing this unfortunately confabulated account. Almost from the beginning of the cross-examination, James Arber was prepared to concede that he did not really ever have the date of 5 June 2002 in mind - he just knew it was "cold, around Anzac day, yeah May, June" - that he took the date from other information, and that in the end he was trying to help the Police and that it was "hit and miss". [193] He acknowledged, rather sadly, the final proposition put to him after a fair but thorough cross-examination by Mr King, that the exercise he had engaged in was that he had: "picked out some fragments of memories, … added in a few fantasies and … stitched them all together using the glue of tabloid sensationalism to end up with this not so neat story." [194]
On 4 May 2022, Robert and Anne were arrested for Amber's murder. In the police car on the way to the Young Police Station, DSC Cary made a number of bizarre and outrageous assertions to Anne, which DSC Cary described in her evidence as "questions" such as that Anne and Robert had "dispose[d] of her body to pigs", about which not one skerrick of evidence was led at this trial.
A miscellany of statements, phone records and tax invoices were tendered by the Crown that indicated purchases by the Geeves, movements by them or phone calls made by them in June, July and August 2002. None of this material was tied back to any of the "circumstances" alleged by the Prosecutor to comprise the Prosecution case. Their relevance or import was not explained and there is no need to refer to that material in this judgment.

Liberato direction

Both accused rely on an account of events given first to police on 19 June 2002 and in their respective interviews with police on 25 June 2002 and 18 July 2002. That account is in very broad terms to the following effect: 1. Amber decided she wanted to see her father who was in hospital in Sydney, having been told by relatives that he was very unwell and did not have long to live. 2. Robert and Anne decided to drive her to Sydney after Robert finished work on 5 June 2002. 3. They delivered her to Campbelltown train station after taking her to an ATM so she could take out money and buying her a hotdog to have with her anti-epileptic medication. 4. They last saw her walking towards the train station. 5. She did not take Ben with her as she had concerns about her father's hepatitis infection and his potential attitude to her. 6. They were not initially alarmed when she did not make contact as she had done this before. 7. They did not have contact details for Amber's family and so had no means of contacting them. 8. As Amber had been living with them at Huntleigh and not at the Clarke Street flat, they did not make inquiries at Clarke Street. 9. Around 17 or 18 June 2002, they became concerned that she had not been in touch and so tried to contact DoCS to speak to Ms Thompson but were fobbed off. 10. On 19 June 2002, they reported her missing to Young Police.
It is important that I bear in mind at all times that the accused persons must be found not guilty if his or her guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He and she are entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt I may have at the end of my deliberations. It follows from this: first, if I believe the account given by the accused to police on 19 June 2002 and in those ERISPs, including their denial that they harmed Amber, obviously I must acquit them of murder. Second, if I find difficulty in accepting the accuseds' account, but think it might be true, then I must acquit them of murder. Third, if I do not believe the accuseds' account, then I should put those accounts to one side. Nevertheless, the question will remain, has the Prosecution, upon the basis of evidence that I do accept, proved the accuseds' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Warning pursuant to s 165B Evidence Act - delay in prosecution

There are some other warnings and directions I need to give myself before I provide my conclusions as to whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused. First, both accused submitted that warnings should be given in relation to the delay in prosecution (of over 22 years), on the basis that both accused have suffered significant forensic disadvantage.
Section 165B of the Evidence Act provides: 165B Delay in prosecution (1) This section applies in a criminal proceeding in which there is a jury. (2) If the court, on application by a party, is satisfied that the defendant has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the consequences of delay, the court must inform the jury of the nature of that disadvantage and the need to take that disadvantage into account when considering the evidence. (3) The judge need not comply with subsection (2) if there are good reasons for not doing so. (4) It is not necessary that a particular form of words be used in informing the jury of the nature of the significant forensic disadvantage suffered and the need to take that disadvantage into account, but the judge must not in any way suggest to the jury that it would be dangerous or unsafe to convict the defendant solely because of the delay or the forensic disadvantage suffered because of the consequences of the delay. (5) The judge must not warn or inform the jury about any forensic disadvantage the defendant may have suffered because of delay except in accordance with this section, but this section does not affect any other power of the judge to give any warning to, or to inform, the jury. (6) For the purposes of this section - (a) delay includes delay between the alleged offence and its being reported, and (b) significant forensic disadvantage is not to be regarded as being established by the mere existence of a delay. (7) For the purposes of this section, the factors that may be regarded as establishing a significant forensic disadvantage include, but are not limited to, the following - (a) the fact that any potential witnesses have died or are not able to be located, (b) the fact that any potential evidence has been lost or is otherwise unavailable.
The accused must specifically identify the forensic disadvantage(s) suffered. It is not sufficient to argue death of a witness or loss of a detail, if there is nothing to indicate whether that evidence would have been inculpatory or exculpatory: Dawson v R [2024] NSWCCA 98 ("Dawson") at [93]. The extent of delay is not the test. It is the consequence of delay that matters: TO v R [2017] NSWCCA 12 ("TO") at [167].
Counsel for the defence jointly submitted that given that Amber went missing in early June 2002, many witnesses in this current trial had difficulties in remembering what they said in their police statements (many of which were made in 2002) and were the subject of applications under s 32 of the Evidence Act. A number of witnesses are deceased.
I am not satisfied that this wider submission provides a basis for a wholescale s 165B direction, given what the Court said in Dawson and TO about the need for specificity in approach. Many s 32 applications were granted and led to the Court being assisted by the accounts given to police by witnesses in signed statements when matters were still very fresh in their minds.
However both accused submitted that evidence from the following witnesses which was not available at trial would have assisted the defence case had the prosecution been brought earlier: 1. Petrina Ingram's lost diary notes of her conversation with Amber at Cootamundra, [195] considering that Ms Ingram did not give a statement to police until 2024 [196] because her initial accounts to police in 2002 and 2008 (oral accounts to Crime Stoppers, not formal statements) were not responded to. [197] 2. Stella's evidence as to whether Amber told her anything about Anne Geeves' ability to have more children: "Q. Did Amber ever tell you anything about Anne Geeves' ability to have more children? A. She didn't say, no, she never said nothing like with - well, I don't know. She could have but I can't remember that, that part there, she can't have children. I suppose, yes, that's why she wants them." [198] This topic is central to the Crown's motive, and the lapse of time made exploration of what was said about the topic difficult if not impossible for Stella. 3. Stella's evidence about not recalling the topics of Amber's travel experience with Campbelltown train station. [199] This topic is central to the second of the indispensable intermediate facts, described in the circumstantial case warning. 4. Stella's inability to recall a visit from Ms Powell in February 2002, which would have given context to Ms Powell's observations of a loud argument and her impression that it was due to the family not wanting Amber to stay there any longer. [200] This was relevant to the evidence of Ms Powell in which, (initially at least), a preference by Ms Powell for Ms Nealon's family was expressed, but that changed. 5. Reuben Spicer, a now deceased witness, provided a statement to police in June 2002 in which he said that he saw Amber "a couple of days" after he had passed a message to Robert about Amber's father's illness. Reuben made his statement shortly after this observation was said to have occurred. It is reasonable to infer the date he says that he saw Amber again would have been 3 or 4 June 2002. This would put Amber, observed alive by someone who knew her, on a date past the first of the dates on the Indictment and so was an important matter to explore, but defence counsel were unable to do so. 6. Judith Khan, another deceased witness, gave evidence at the Inquest that she had spoken to Amber about her father's health, (although the date is not clear), and told Amber that her father was in Mt Druitt Hospital and that he was very ill and "doesn't have that much longer". [201] That fact of whether and when Amber was told that description of her father's illness and state of health is vital, and defence counsel were denied the chance to examine further that conversation, and the circumstances discussed in the conversation. 7. Heather Ritchie, who gave evidence of at least one meeting with Robert and Anne in which Robert said: "You can't believe what she [Amber] says, she tells lies, she doesn't speak the truth". [202] Ms Richie gave evidence that she made notes of this meeting "Only in my diary, which I have tried to find, and I can't. It's just a bit too long ago". [203] This loss of evidence has deprived Robert and Anne of the ability to test and potentially undermine or clarify Ms Ritchie's evidence and precisely what was said to her by the Geeves at this time.
I am satisfied that both accused have suffered a significant forensic disadvantage as a consequence of the 20 year delay in prosecution as set out in (i) to (vii) above, because they have been deprived of the opportunity of examining and testing witnesses' impressions and recollections without the assistance of the once available contemporaneous records that would potentially clarify or potentially change the colour of the material recounted, and would provide a basis for testing the evidence of the respective witnesses. In respect of Reuben Spicer, there is a loss of an important previously available opportunity to clarify the possibility adverted to in his statement that he saw the deceased alive on 3 or 4 June 2002.
Defence counsel also submitted that I should also conclude forensic disadvantage to them in respect of the following aspects of Stella's evidence: 1. Whether Stella placed pressure on Amber to have an abortion (in relation to the pregnancy with Paul Harding). [204] It was submitted that her inability to recall this period disallowed both accused from asking questions about Ms Nealon's motive, (if any), for wanting Amber to have an abortion, possibly to protect Paul, and any subsequent development of a purported motive by Anne for a surrogate child. 2. Stella's inability to recall the act of violence by Jacqui Cash causing police to attend the Carinya Downs on 8 August 2000. [205] It was submitted that this prevented defence counsel from pursuing the obvious line of questioning that Ms Nealon's house was not the 'safe haven' that others, particularly Ms Powell, believed it to be.
I am not satisfied that Stella had in truth forgotten those events. In my opinion she was "foxing" to avoid telling the truth about those events, for fear it would make her and her family look bad. This conclusion I have reached about Stella's alleged foggy recollection of these particular events was made manifest by the polite and careful cross-examination of Stella by Mr King and Mr Coady. Accordingly, I do not find any forensic disadvantage operates in respect of these parts of Stella's evidence.

Section 165 - unreliability direction

Both defence counsel requested that I give myself a direction under s 165 of the Evidence Act regarding a particular category of evidence comprising out of court statements that Amber made to various people asserting mistreatment of her by Robert (and Anne) on the basis that it is evidence of a kind that may be unreliable. Section 165 is directed to evidence of a kind about which courts have gained a special knowledge: R v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301; [2001] NSWCCA 260 at [86]. A warning of this kind is not required for evidence about which there is simply issues as to truthfulness, motive to lie, reliability generally or prior inconsistent statements. These matters are within common life experience. However evidence of Amber's statements made to various people out of court does require a cautious approach. I direct myself that I must consider all the matters I have learned about Amber in the trial when assessing first the truth, and separately the reliability, or otherwise, of things she is alleged to have said to people before she disappeared. I must bear in mind that none of her assertions have been able to be tested and were all tendered by the Crown for a hearsay purpose - i.e. to prove the truth of the hearsay statement.

Expert evidence direction

Expert evidence was tendered from John Flockton, a Psychologist, [206] and Dr Brent Waters, Consultant Psychiatrist, who both assessed the Geeves in August and October 2002 as part of DoCS' investigation, re-agitated by police in July 2002, and for [REDACTED], respectively. [207] There was also evidence from Frederick Mesker, a handwriting expert, in the form of a certificate dated August 2003 about Amber's handwriting and letters she had apparently written. [208] Detective (Tech) Manuel Antonio Rivera provided a report regarding his forensic examination of vehicles owned by the accused. [209]
An expert witness is a person who has specialised knowledge based on their training, study or experience. Unlike other witnesses, a witness with such specialised knowledge may express an opinion on matters within his or her particular area of expertise. Other witnesses may speak only as to facts, that is, what they saw or heard, and are not permitted to express their opinions.
The value of any expert opinion very much depends on the reliability and accuracy of the material which the expert used to reach his or her opinion. It also depends on the degree to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion was based and the skill and experience brought to bear in formulating the opinion given. Experts can differ in the level and degree of their experience, training and study, yet can still be an expert qualified to give an opinion where that opinion is based on that witness' specialised knowledge.
I should bear in mind that if, having given the matter careful consideration, I do not accept the evidence of the experts, I do not have to act upon it. This is particularly so where the facts upon which the opinion is based do not accord with the facts as I find them to be. I am entitled, to a degree, to take into account my common sense and my own experiences if they are relevant to the issue upon which the expert evidence relates.
Defence counsel jointly submitted that I should take Mr Flockton's August 2002 assessment and report into account as an evaluation of (and response to) police allegations made at that time that Robert Geeves was irrational, suicidal, on drugs, "ranting and raving" and that both accused harboured a homicidal "surrogacy" motive.
A similar submission was made in respect of Dr Waters' report to [REDACTED] dated October 2002. [210] Dr Waters met with the Geeves and Ben on 6 October 2002. His report included observations of the Geeves' relationship with each other and with Ben. Neither he nor Mr Flockton made observations of either accused harbouring (or demonstrating) an apparent homicidal "surrogacy" motive.
I am not satisfied that the function those expert opinions was to make such a specific assessment, however I have read those reports as an expert evaluation of the psychological stability of both accused at the time they were observed and interviewed, and the opinions each expert articulated were generally favourable, noting that there was nothing pathological or concerning seen in their attachment to or bonding with Ben, their relationship with each other, or the circumstances examined by them to the extent they did so in the context of those particular reviews. I take those opinions into account as part of the whole of the evidence tendered and led in this case, but do not consider either report has a role in evaluating any essential fact that I need to determine as to whether the motive alleged by the Crown was present before or at the time the Crown alleges Amber was murdered by the accused.
Defence counsel also submitted that evidence of the previous officers in charge of Strike Force Villamar 1, DS Crea and SC Cockram, should be treated as expert evidence on the issue of the weakness of the Prosecution case, given their expert views must have been that there was insufficient evidence upon which to charge Mr and Mrs Geeves with murder in 2002 and 2008, and the obvious lack of any persuasive new evidence found by Villamar 2.
I reject that submission. DS Crea and SC Cockram were witnesses of fact, and that is all. Their opinions as to whether there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr and Mrs Geeves at the time when they were in charge of the investigation is irrelevant to my task now, and does not amount to any expert view, by default or otherwise, about the adequacy of the Prosecution case presented at trial.
Defence counsel submitted that another witness of fact, Emma Baldock, should also be considered in the category of an expert. Whilst a highly qualified person, her involvement in this case was not in the nature of an expert retained to provide an objective assessment of a particular issue. Whilst she did provide a "report", much like the staff at the YCHC who were also well qualified, (Ms Richens, Ms Kerr, Mr James and Ms Powell), Ms Baldock interviewed and assessed Amber's needs. She did so in a single session in March 2002. She was not retained to elicit a history of sexual or any other type of abuse or mistreatment at the hands of Mr Geeves, or anyone else. The submission that the absence of such a history from her notes of her interaction with Amber does not mean that Amber's accounts of these things to others were not true. The focus of Ms Baldock's role was on Amber's current support needs and situation. Given recent DoCS involvement and Amber's obvious fears her baby would be taken from her by DoCS, it is unsurprising that Amber did not volunteer anything that could put her living situation at the Geeves' house at risk. There was also no evidence that Ms Baldock considered her role as including probing into any history of sexual misconduct or sexual abuse.

Effect of acquittals

Evidence was given by various witnesses as to the following matters: 1. In 1987 Mr Geeves was charged with sexual offences against two female children. He was acquitted of those sexual offences. [211] 2. Mr Geeves was charged with a criminal offence following the death of a woman named Janelle Goodwin. He was discharged at committal. [212] He was charged again in 2003 and acquitted following a trial. [213]
Evidence of these circumstances was adduced to explain the evidence of Ms Nealon, Ms Powell (which was conveyed by her to Ms Ritchie and Ms Baldock) as well as the evidence of investigating police, and their attitude of pre-judgement towards Robert Geeves.
As Mr Geeves was acquitted of both sets of offences, this evidence cannot be used to prove any type of bad character, or tendency to act in any way. Mr Geeves must be given the full effect of his acquittals: in DS v R [2018] NSWCCA 195 at [3], citing The Queen v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55. The Crown Prosecutor made a submission in his closing address that purported to undermine the effect of those acquittals. It was appropriately identified by Mr Coady as an improper submission and was the next day unequivocally withdrawn. The submission should never have been made by the Crown Prosecutor and I have completely disregarded it.

Character

Anne Geeves has called evidence to establish that she is a person of good character in that she does not have a criminal record. That evidence has not been challenged by the Crown. Therefore I must accept the fact that Anne is a person of good character.
The law provides that I am entitled to take evidence of an accused's good character into account in her favour on the question of whether the Crown has proved her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that Anne is a person of good character is relevant to the likelihood of her having committed the offence alleged. I can take into account her good character by reasoning that such a person is unlikely to have committed the offence charged by the Crown and whether I do is a matter for me.
I can use the fact that Anne is a person of good character to support her credibility. I may reason that a person of good character is less likely to lie or give a false account either in giving evidence before me or in giving an account of the events in answer to questions asked by the police. This is a matter for me.
None of this means, of course, that good character provides Anne with some kind of defence. It is only one of the many factors which I must take into account in determining whether I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Anne's guilt. What weight I give to the fact that Anne is a person of good character is completely a matter for me. I will take that fact into account in the ways I have indicated. Additionally, I draw no adverse inferences against Robert because Anne has raised good character and he has not.

Circumstantial reasoning

I am able to, and will, draw inferences from the established evidence. However in doing so I must first be satisfied of the primary facts. The Prosecution has asked me to find certain basic facts established by the evidence. Those facts do not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Taken by themselves they cannot prove the guilt of the accused. I am then asked to infer or conclude from a combination of those established facts that a further fact or facts existed. The ultimate fact the Prosecution asks me to find based upon the basic facts is that the accused persons are guilty of the offence of murdering Amber between 1 and 6 June 2002.
Drawing a conclusion from one set of established facts to find that another fact is proved, involves a logical and rational process of reasoning. I must not base my conclusion(s) upon speculation, conjecture, supposition or suspicion.
Twenty-seven alleged circumstances were identified which I have divided into four categories: (i) proof of life, (ii) other factual circumstances, (iii) conduct consistent with a motive to kill for the purposes of taking custody of Ben; and (iv) circumstances consistent with a knowledge that Amber was dead.
The "Proof of life" circumstances asserted are: • There has been no independent sighting of Amber since 2 June 2002, when she was seen at the Clarke Street flats with Robert. Amber has not made contact with any family or friends since this date. • Amber had epilepsy. She has not attended a doctor's appointment to obtain a prescription for her epilepsy medication or filled a prescription for her epilepsy medication. • Amber suffered from an intellectual disability and required assistance to live independently in the community. There is no evidence that she has accessed support services in the community since 2 June 2002. • Amber was not employed and had no independent source of income other than Centrelink benefits. Despite receiving Centrelink benefit payments until 11 September 2002, there were no further withdrawals after 8:49pm on 5 June 2002. • There is no evidence that Amber committed suicide. • There have been no other 'signs of life' since 5 June 2002.
The "Other factual circumstances" asserted by the Crown are: • Amber would not have voluntarily abandoned her child, Ben. In the event of her death, Amber had expressed in her Will that custody of her child was to be given to her aunt, Patricia Haigh. • Upon being notified on about 1 June 2002 that her father, Geoffrey, was unwell and may die, Amber did not make any arrangements to travel to Sydney for the purpose of visiting him. • The circumstances of Amber's alleged trip to Sydney on 5 June 2002 are completely inconsistent with her past behaviour, and the inference to be drawn is that Amber did not make this trip because she did not travel by train from Cootamundra to Sydney; did not take Ben with her; did not make arrangements to stay with, or visit, any family or friends in Sydney; and did not inform Geoffrey that she was going to visit him in hospital, and Geoffrey had told medical staff at Mt Druitt Hospital that he wanted to be transferred to Lismore Hospital. • The only evidence linking Amber to Campbelltown Railway Station on 5 June 2002 is the ATM withdrawal at 8:49pm. The Geeves were present when this event occurred, and there is evidence that they had access to, and management of, Amber's bank accounts and debit card. • There is no evidence that Amber met with foul play at Campbelltown Railway Station. • In 2001, Amber made a Will that did not include Robert or Anne. • Amber expressed fears that Ben would be taken from her, either by Robert and Anne or DoCS. • Amber was fearful of Robert. She told multiple people that he had tied her up and had sexual intercourse with her. • Robert and Anne sought to control Amber, to ensure that they remained actively involved in Ben's life.
Conduct that is consistent with a motive to kill Amber for the purpose of taking custody of Ben was identified as: • Robert and Anne had a desire for more children. • Robert had a sexual relationship with Amber. • After discovering Amber was pregnant, Robert and Anne considered it an opportunity for them to have another child. Amber was considered a "surrogate mother". • Robert and Anne assisted Amber throughout her pregnancy, and after the birth of Ben. This was done to ensure the child's health and wellbeing. • Robert and Anne observed Amber to develop a deep, maternal bond to Ben, which meant it unlikely she would voluntarily relinquish custody of him. • With this in mind, Robert and Anne sought to undermine Amber's parenting capabilities to services such as DoCS, and isolate Amber from members of her extended family.
The Prosecution asserted that the following circumstances are consistent with a knowledge (on the part of the accused) that Amber is dead: • Robert and Anne were the last people to see Amber at Campbelltown Railway Station on 5 June 2002. • Despite having no contact with Amber after allegedly driving her to Campbelltown Railway Station on 5 June 2002, the Geeves did not report Amber missing until 19 June 2002. • Prior to reporting her as a missing person, Robert and Anne did not contact Mt Druitt Hospital to confirm whether Amber had visited Geoffrey, did not contact any members of Amber's family, did not contact DoCS, and did not attend the Clarke Street flats to enquire as to Amber's whereabouts. • During the ERISP interviews, and on the Listening Device product, Robert and Anne spoke of Amber in the past tense. • Robert and Anne's behaviour when Amber went 'missing' in early June 2002 is very different to their behaviour when she went 'missing' in late February 2002. This is because, on the second occasion, they had the care and custody of Ben. • Robert and Anne told lies to cover up the fact that they killed Amber.
Turning to the circumstances directed to the question of whether Amber is dead, I am unable to make a finding as to the day Amber died, but I accept the above circumstances, plus the pattern of her fortnightly cash withdrawal of her pension and family assistance money from her account at the Credit Union and the absence of any such access since 5 June 2002 leads me to the inevitable conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that Amber Haigh is dead. Whilst contact with her extended family was haphazard, the evidence is clear that she would phone or turn up for a chat, and seek the company of others including strangers, and she has not done so after 5 June 2002 a period of over 22 years.
I further find that she probably died on or before 19 June 2002 which was the next "pension day" on which money went into her account, but was never accessed. The evidence tendered and led does not permit me to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Amber died "between 1 and 6 June 2002" as the Crown has alleged in the Indictment.
Defence counsel have submitted, and the Crown Prosecutor accepted that this is a "links in a chain" case which means that if one of the "links" fails, the Prosecution case fails. Central to the way the Crown case was presented was that I should draw an inference, being a conclusion of guilt, based on two essential matters: 1. that the Geeves had the shared motive to kill Amber in order to assume full parental control of Ben; and 2. that they did not take her to Campbelltown Railway Station on 5 June 2002, (and as part of this, Amber could not have withdrawn money from her bank account in Campbelltown).
It is not open to me to come to a conclusion favourable to the Prosecution unless I find that these two indispensable intermediate facts, individually, were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of these facts to this high standard is essential to my coming to a conclusion in favour of the Prosecution, because the Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Those particular facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not because they alone prove the guilt of both accused, but because each fact is an essential step in the reasoning that the Prosecution asks me to follow in order to establish its case. Unless those facts are individually proven beyond reasonable doubt, the reasoning relied upon by the Prosecution fails.
In relation to facts which are not essential to my process of reasoning, I must not consider those facts I find established by the evidence in isolation, but must have regard to them as a whole.
If I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the existence of both of the indispensable intermediate facts, then I can take that satisfaction to that high standard required together with all the other facts I find established, and ask whether I can draw an inference or conclusion in favour of the Prosecution from all the facts, considered as a whole.
If such a conclusion is not available, I must find that the Prosecution's circumstantial case fails.
It is for me to determine what conclusion, if any, can reasonably be drawn from the established facts, and then consider whether there is any other reasonable explanation for those facts, other than that of both accused's guilt. If there is no other explanation consistent with all the established facts considered together, then it would be open to me to convict the accused.
If, however, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to either of the indispensable intermediate facts to which I have referred, I must return a verdict of not guilty.
The category (iii) circumstances listed in [394] underpin the first indispensable intermediate fact motive to kill Amber to obtain custody of Ben.
First there is no satisfactory evidence that in 2001 Anne and Robert held a desire for more children. The medical records for Anne demonstrated that in 1994 after the loss of Emma, Anne was looking at possibly another pregnancy but there is nothing after that date. Most of the evidence that the Geeves "wanted" more children was old, anecdotal or third-hand. Robbie Geeves' evidence was of a general nature as to occasional conversations with his mother about her feeling guilt she had not provided him with a sibling.
It is true Robert had sex with Amber. This does not mean he wanted her to be pregnant. His apparent ambivalence about the pregnancy was reported by Amber in the YCHC records.
There is no evidence that Amber's 2001-2002 pregnancy was embraced with the attitude that it was an opportunity for "them" to have another child. For a start it was not "their" child, only Robert's. Evidence as to what any of the protagonists meant by use of the term "surrogacy" was unclear. Nowhere was there evidence that either Anne or Robert stated to anyone that Amber had been used as a "surrogate" but even if they had, as Mr King submitted, her disappearance led to the Geeves being suspected and removal of Ben was an obvious inevitable consequence.
It is true the Geeves provided Amber with assistance. She was a disadvantaged young woman with poor family support. Jacqui Cash did not want Amber around talking about or being with her son Paul. Amber was carrying Robert's child. There was nothing sinister in their provision of assistance, and I decline to draw an inference that there was.
There is evidence that Amber bonded with Ben and loved him very much. There is evidence she tried hard to care for him. There is evidence she struggled with this and needed help and support and that she constantly sought such help and support. The events between 2 and 6 February 2002 at Stella's house made it clear that calm, unconditional support was not going to be provided for her at Stella's.
I do not accept that the evidence demonstrates that Robert and Anne sought to undermine Amber's parenting capabilities. The evidence of Ms Thompson of DoCS was to the contrary that at the assessment visit on 11 February 2002, Anne was quietly supportive of Amber's mothering skills. On 1 March 2002 they expressed concerns to Ms Thompson because Amber had disappeared and seemed to be struggling with the relentless demands of motherhood.
I do not accept that the evidence supports that the Geeves tried to isolate Amber from her family. Her mother did not want her, her father was a frightening, inconsistent and abusive feature in her life, Jacqui Cash assaulted her and was angry with her about the pregnancy to Paul, and Amber's disclosure of it to people, and showing signs that she was still emotionally attached to Paul. Accommodation at Carinya Downs was conditional upon Amber having nothing to do with Robert or Anne. Paul Harding's ongoing relationship with Amber was ambiguous but clearly involved an ongoing sexual relationship in late 2001 if not later. Amber went back and forth between places and people looking for love and solace. She never found it. She was still looking for it when she disappeared.
The second indispensable intermediate fact that I must find beyond reasonable doubt, is that the Geeves did not take Amber to Campbelltown station on 5 June 2002 and so Amber did not make the balance inquiry and withdrawal at around 8:48pm to 8:49pm that night at the ATM on Queen Street, Campbelltown.
The account of this given by the accused is not inherently implausible and is supported by other independent evidence. Both Anne and Robert were asked in the ERISPs many questions about exactly what occurred on the journey. Their accounts were consistent and consistently told. The fact that Amber had taken a train to Sydney on other occasions does not mean there is anything suspect in being driven on this occasion. The timing of travel makes sense. The phone call to Robert's boss corroborates the timing and Robert's tiredness and the request for a late arrival and ultimately day off.
The 8:48pm ATM balance inquiry and subsequent withdrawal of all the funds down to the last few dollars was consistent with the usual pattern of card use and withdrawal of all the money down to the last few dollars every pension payment day - and, frankly, any day money was paid in - e.g. 9 January 2002 when the $1,000.00 Loan Funding was paid in, and 6 February 2002 when the family assistance bonus payment of $922.24 was paid in.
It was a central plank in the Prosecution case that Robert and Anne "controlled" Amber's access to money, and in particular her keycard use. This is simply not made out on the evidence. Her friend Mavis Yardley saw her using it on more than one occasion, inside and outside the bank or Credit Union, and that Amber would do a balance check, occasionally asking others to read it for her, and then a withdrawal. Amber had the card with her when she went to Sydney with Ben and spent $400.00 on clothes for herself and Ben with Tracey Ford. Daphne Henry had seen the card in Amber's purse. Cindy Brown had seen Amber using an ATM and buying things. These casual observations are persuasive that Amber had access to and control over her own spending.
The closing submission by the Crown Prosecutor that Robert and Anne had lied in their ERISPs because they "repeatedly and unequivocally denied having any involvement whatsoever in Amber's finances" was both incorrect, and unsubstantiated. An assertion was put to Robert in his ERISP on 18 July 2002 that he "in fact had control of Amber's finances". This was a very loaded question. Robert disagreed and explained the situation as set out in [292]. He denied having access to her Credit Union pin and card. There is no evidence that he did. There is no lie about which I need to make a determination as to whether it is a lie that ought to be considered to be one that could betray a consciousness of guilt.
Anne was asked whether she ever withdrew any money from Amber's account or whether she or Robert knew the pin. She denied that. Her answer was no-nonsense: "I wouldn't give her mine, so why ask for hers." Anne explained that Amber would spend her money "fairly fast", and when Amber got the Credit Union loan money, she took some of that cash and gave it to Robert to keep it away from Amber's father. (Amber's bank records confirm that $790.00 was withdrawn at the Mill Tavern ATM on 9 January 2002, reducing the account to $2.44. This is the time when Amber's father was in town.) There was no lie on Anne's part that needs to be considered.
I am not persuaded that either indispensable intermediate fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt. I have decided that the version of events provided by the accused may be true. In those circumstances, I must acquit.
For all these reasons the verdict I must enter in respect of both Robert Geeves and Anne Geeves is not guilty.

Endnotes

Crown opening, tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 20.8-10
Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 84.30-34
Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 94.26-31
Exhibit 24, Bundle of Young Community Health, Young Hospital and associated records involving Amber Haigh, p 19
Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 89.46-48
Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 90.5-7
Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 90.12-14
Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 90.25 to p 91.8; p 92.27-34
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 211
Exhibit 24, Bundle of Young Community Health, Young Hospital and associated records involving Amber Haigh, p17
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 153.40 to p 155.10
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 228.46 to p 229.12
Tcpt, 8 July 2024, p 970.23-24
Tcpt, 9 July 2024, p 1095.18-47
Exhibit 92, COPS entry E4466832 created by Sgt Price dated 19 February 1998
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 151.48 to p 152.13
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 233.14 to p 234.5
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 234.7-11
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 289.44 to p 290.22
Tcpt, 8 July 2024, p 971.32-37; p 977.6-50
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 235.26 to p 237.50
Tcpt, 8 July 2024, p 981.22-28
Tcpt, 8 July 2024, p 981.31 to p 982.13
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 238.24 to p 240.21
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 310.7-18
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 291.24-30
Tcpt, 8 July 2024, p 958.18-45
Exhibit AG1, Complaint and Summons
Exhibit AG1, Complaint and Summons
Exhibit AG1, Complaint and Summons; Exhibit AG6, COPS event reports ending in 384 and 578 shown to SC Alexander Illes in evidence; Tcpt, 22 July 2024, p 1932.40-47
Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 86.38 to p 87.17; p 88.30-43; p 93.20-22
Tcpt, 8 July 2024, p 908.21 to p 908.35
Exhibit 24, Young Community Health records, p 5.15-36
Exhibit 88, ERISp of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002, Q113-A115
Tcpt, 5 July 2024, p 878.42-50
Exhibit 27, Handwritten note headed "Message" authored by Rebecca McMillian
Tcpt, 9 July 2024, p 1008.21-41
Tcpt, 9 July 2024, p 1013.41 to p 1016.29
Tcpt, Statement of Stella Nealon, 25 June 2002, par 7, confirmed in evidence, Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 194.5-27
Exhibit 131, Extracts from statement of Daphne Henry dated 25 June 2002 redacted as per rulings of the Court or agreement between the parties
Tcpt, 1 July 2024, p 508.9-10
Tcpt, 22 July 2024, p 1871.8-38
Tcpt, 22 July 2024, p 1880.15-23
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 162.24-32.
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 163.42-43
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 165.18-22
Exhibit 96 - DVD of the edited search warrant footage of Amber Haigh's flat on 24 June 2002
Exhibit 81, Expert Certificate of Frederick Willem Mesker dated 26 August 2003 together with annexures
Exhibit 81, Expert Certificate of Frederick Willem Mesker dated 26 August 2003 together with annexures
Exhibit 14, Two pages of bank records of general savings account of Amber Haigh
Exhibit 81, Expert Certificate of Frederick Willem Mesker dated 26 August 2003 together with annexures
Exhibit 46, Exhibit bag together with a handwritten document headed "Agreement" dated 4 January 2001 apparently signed by Robert S Geeves and Amber Haigh
Exhibit 71, Complaint and Summons for AVO; Haigh v Haigh sworn on 14 January 2002
Exhibit 69, Complaint and Summons for AVO; Geeves v Haigh sworn on 14 January 2002; Exhibit 70, Final Apprehended Violence Order; Geeves v Haigh faxed 22 January 2002
Exhibit 74, Letter from Geoffrey Haigh to Young Courthouse dated 16 January 2001 indicating in relation to AVO listed on 22 January 2002
Exhibit 70, Final Apprehended Violence Order; Geeves v Haigh faxed 22 January 2002; Exhibit 72, Interim Apprehended Violence Order; Haigh v Haigh faxed 15 January 2002
Exhibit 24, Bundle of Young Community Health, Young Hospital and associated records involving Amber Haigh
Exhibit 24, Bundle of Young Community Health, Young Hospital and associated records involving Amber Haigh, p 111
Tcpt, 27 June 2024, p 393.7-50; p 406.40 to p 907.11
Tcpt, 27 June 2024, p 403.29-31 to p 404.18; p 40716-17
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 160.3-6
Exhibit 24, Bundle of Young Community Health, Young Hospital and associated records involving Amber Haigh
Tcpt, 18 July 2024, p 1833.5-25
Exhibit 20, Bundle of 45 pages of records from the QEII Centre and associated records noting the defendants reserve their position to identify any further s 136 limitations, p 21
Tcpt, 10 July 2024, p 1141.33 to p 1142.27
Tcpt, 10 July 2024, p 1142.40 to p 1143.11
Tcpt, 27 June 2024, p 407.19 to p 408.18
Tcpt, 27 June 2024, p 379.29; p 405.26 to p 406.7
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 293.6 to p 296.3
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 296.6 to p 297.38
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 298.14-21; p 311.12-28
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 299.26-42
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 329.1-32
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 300.1-11; p 311.46 to p 312.40
Tcpt, 26 June 2024, p 329.10-16
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 222.8-48
Exhibit 94, COPS Event document reference number E13878118 referring to 3 to 6 February 2002
Tcpt, dated 3 July 2024, p 684.31 to p 685.17
Exhibit 24, Bundle of Young Community Health, Young Hospital and associated records involving Amber Haigh
Tcpt, 5 July 2024, p 859.39 to p 861.34
Tcpt, 2 July 2024, p 758.29 to p 759.11
Exhibit 35, Bundle of DoCS material extracted by the Crown from Ben's file, p 32
Exhibit 2, Birth certificate of Ben
Exhibit 35, Bundle of DoCS material extracted by the Crown from Ben's file, p 63
Tcpt, 1 July 2024, p 480.38-40
Exhibit 35, Bundle of DoCS material extracted by the Crown from Ben's file, p 64
Exhibit 130, Extracts from Statement of Patricia Haigh dated 21 June 2002 redacted as per rulings of the Court or agreement between the parties
Tcpt, 2 July 2024, p 608.3 to p 611.31
Exhibit 14, Two pages of bank records of general savings account of Amber Haigh; Tcpt, 21 June 2024, p 71.48 to p 72.5
Tcpt, 2 July 2024, p 531.1-31; p 537.27 to p 538.1
Exhibit 38, Original note red ink presented by Robert Geeves and Anne Geeves to Jaqueline Anne Thompson on 1 March 2002
Tcpt, 15 July 2024, p 1498.2-38; Exhibit 38, Original note in red ink presented by Robert Geeves and Anne Geeves to Jacqueline Anne Thompson on 1 March 2002; Tcpt, 22 July 2024, p 1908.11-28
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, p 634.46 to p 635.8
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, p 640.36 to p 641.12
Exhibit 20, Bundle of 45 pages of records from the QEII Centre
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, 737.25 to p 739.48
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, p 802-803; p 899.25-32, Exhibit 20, Bundle of 45 pages of records from the QEII Centre
Tcpt, 27 June 2024, p 414; p 417 and noted Exhibit 20, Bundle of 45 pages of records from the QEII Centre, p 40-42
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, p 709.42-49
Tcpt, 17 July 2024, p 1658.31 to p 1659.3
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, p 638.14-18; p 646.8 to p 647.5
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, p 648.47 to p 649.22
Exhibit 24, Bundle of Young Community Health, Young Hospital and associated records involving Amber Haigh
Tcpt, 3 July 2024, p 762.34-40
Tcpt, 10 July 2024, p 1144.10-33
Tcpt, 2 August 2024, p 2294.33 to p 2295.2 - Agreed Facts
Exhibit 136, Extracts from Judith Khan's transcript at the Inquest from pages 44.50 to p 45.9 redacted as per rulings of the Court or agreement between the parties
Exhibit 133, Extracts from statement of Patricia Haigh dated 21 June 2002 redacted as per rulings of the Court or agreement between the parties
Exhibit 135, Extracts from statement of Reuben Spicer dated 24 June 2002 redacted as per rulings of the Court or agreement between the parties
Exhibit 114, Four tabbed pages in a yellow notebook collected from Amber's room at Huntleigh on 29 July 2002
Exhibit 8, Nine colour photographs of Amber Haigh, baby Ben and Robert Geeves taken in May 2002 at Classique Studios
Exhibit 86, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002; Exhibit 87, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 25 June 2002
Tcpt 11 July 2024, p 1289.4 to p 1290.38
Exhibit 88, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 88, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 88, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A137
Exhibit 88, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A147
Exhibit 88, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 88, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 88, ERISP of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 14, Two pages of bank records of general savings account of Amber Haigh
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Exhibit 93, ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002
Tcpt, 30 July 2024, p 2117.5-14
Exhibit AG13, Operational Orders for Search of Property at Huntleigh
Tcpt, 23 July 2024, p 1955.48 to p 1956.16
Tcpt, 23 July 2024, p 1954.8-10
Tcpt, 23 July 2024, p 1957.33-41; p 1973.9-11
Tcpt, 23 July 2024, p 1960.3-6
Exhibit AG13, Operational Orders for Search of Property at Huntleigh
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 25 July 2002 at 7:18am
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A56
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A133
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A210-211
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A71
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A342
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A356
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A380
Exhibit 87, ERISP, audio only, of Robert Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A119
Exhibit 87, ERISP, audio only, of Robert Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A156
Exhibit 87, ERISP, audio only, of Robert Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A183
Exhibit 88, ERISP, audio only, of Robert Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A208
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 18 July 2002 at 10:24pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 18 July 2002 at 11:07pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 20 July 2002 at 8:58am
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 25 July 2002 at 10:10pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 30 July 2002 at 4:13pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 10 August 2002 at 3:28pm
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A91
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A119
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A139
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A141
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A142
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A143
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A146
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A153
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A169
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A202
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A203
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A204
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A205
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A208
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A222
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A245
Exhibit 86, Compact Disc containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 25 June 2002, A246
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A261
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A262
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A364
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A441
Exhibit 93, DVD containing the ERISP of Anne Geeves dated 18 July 2002, A451
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 18 July 2002 at 11:12pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 20 July 2002 at 8:58am
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 23 July 2002 at 4:36pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 23 July 2002 at 4:36pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 23 July 2002 at 7:13pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 24 July 2002 at 7:43am
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 26 July 2002 at 6:32am
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 29 July 2002 at 9:30pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 10 August 2002 at 3:28pm
Exhibit 122, listening device recording at Huntleigh, 10 August 2002 at 3:28pm
Exhibit AG17, Three pages of Investigator Notes dated 9 August 2021
Exhibit AG18, Investigator's Note dated 22 August 2021
Tcpt, 18 July 2024, p 1780.9 to 1781.38
Exhibit 118, Statement of Peter Arber dated 28 September 2021
Exhibit AG19, Investigator's Note regarding [REDACTED] patient history dated 3 November 2022
Tcpt, 18 July 2024, p 1776.42 to p 1777.4; p 1778.41-50
Tcpt, 18 July 2024, p 1804.45-49; Exhibit AG18, Investigator's Note dated 22 August 2021
Tcpt, 2 July 2024, p 606.19-41; p 611.20-32
Tcpt, 2 July 2024, p 615.23-40
Tcpt, 2 July 2024, p 615.1-20
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 199.27-31
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 206.10-42
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 223.9 to p 225.3
Exhibit 136, Extracts from Judith Khan's transcript at the Inquest from p 44.50 to p 45.9 redacted as per rulings of the Court or agreement between the parties
Tcpt, 5 July 2024, p 861.6-8
Tcpt, 5 July 2024, p 861.36-41
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 216.37-49
Tcpt, 25 June 2024, p 243.28 to p 244.7
Exhibit 35, Bundle of DoCS material extracted by the Crown from Ben's file, p 427-439
Exhibit 35, Bundle of DoCS material extracted by the Crown from Ben's file, p 702-717
Exhibit 81, Expert Certificate of Frederick Willem Mesker dated 26 August 2003 together with annexures
Exhibit 82, Statement of Manuel Antonio Rivera dated 2 November 2004
Exhibit 35, Bundle of DoCS material extracted by the Crown from Ben's file, p 702-717
Tcpt, 2 August 2024, p 2252.50
Tcpt, 2 August 2024, p 2253.9
Tcpt, 2 August 2024, p 2253.13

Amendments 17 September 2024 - Par 357: "blue [tack]" corrected with "glue" 17 September 2024 - Par 4: punctuation corrected DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 17 September 2024

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (27 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (11)