R v Geeves; R v Geeves

Petrina Ingram

1. Petrina Ingram is a young woman Amber met at Cootamundra Station in March 2002. Both Amber and Ms Ingram had a long wait for a train, struck up a conversation and had some food together. Some of the conversation she had with Amber had struck Ms Ingram as strange and concerning. She later told her boyfriend about it and made notes in her diary about it.
2. Ms Ingram remembered Amber and the conversation when there was a news report that Amber was missing with a photograph of her on a television channel local to her family's farm in Ariah Park. She rang Crime Stoppers. Her call was not returned. She called again in 2008 and on another occasion the date of which she was unsure.
3. Ms Ingram was first contacted by police in April 2024 about the information she had provided in 2008.
4. In her statement to police dated 3 April 2024, Ms Ingram said: "14. Amber told me the father of the baby and his wife used to come over to her place with alcohol. They would get her drunk and then the wife would go home, after which the husband would tie her to the bed and have sex with her. …"
5. Objection was taken to this part of the statement as a hearsay representation to which s 65 exceptions did not apply.
6. The Crown Prosecutor argued that the circumstances made it highly probable the representation was reliable, (s 65(2)(c)), because Amber often confided in other women about things that had happened to her in her relationship with the Geeves, and the information she conveyed was similar to accounts she had given to either other trusted persons (female relatives and Paul Harding), or women she chose to confide in given shared situations such as having recently given birth, or to counsellors and nurses inquiring after her welfare.
7. The defence argued that the circumstances are not ones to which s 65(2)(c) applies. The women were unknown to Amber. She was not a trusted relative or friend. She was not a person with whom Amber had a carer or therapist relationship. It was a random meeting.
8. I have concluded that s 65(2)(c) applies for the reasons outlined by the Crown Prosecutor. There is no basis to exclude the evidence under ss 135 or 137. The evidence has significant probative value and the probative value on the fact in issue in the proceedings of physical and/or emotional coercion and control allegedly exercised by Mr and Mrs Geeves over Amber is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Ray Harding

1. Ray Harding was married to Stella Nealon, Amber's great aunt. He was around the house on occasions when Amber was there. He recalled an occasion when Amber was there talking to Stella but he was not part of the conversation.
2. In his statement to police dated 11 July 2002, he said at paragraph 11: "11. One afternoon I saw some red marks on Amber's wrists. …"
3. Objection was taken to the leading of this evidence on the basis that Mr Harding was not part of the conversation and so his asserted observation had no context and potentially no relevance. In those circumstances the evidence was unfairly prejudicial.
4. I ruled that Mr Harding could give evidence limited to what he saw, but could not give evidence as to what he says Stella Nealon and Jacqueline Cash told him was the cause of the marks as represented to Stella and Jacqueline by Amber, as this would be second-hand hearsay.

Jacqueline Cash (now Winn)

1. Jacqueline Cash is Amber's older cousin. Their relationship had some tensions and personality clashes. Jacqueline would often visit Stella Nealon's house while Amber was there.
2. In her statement to police dated 9 July 2002, Jacqueline spoke of a time in about July/August 2001 when Amber was "staying more and more" at the "Geeves's Place". She stated that Amber told her some things: "11. … Amber then said "Robert tied me up". Isaid [sic] to her "what. why". Amber then said "he was questioning me asking who's baby it was his or Paul's". I said "what did you do" Amber then said "kicked him in the guts". Amber then showed me her wrists by pushing both of them together and she said, "I was like this". I then saw marks on Amber's wrists like rope marks around both her wrists. I then said to Amber "you should report it". Amber then said "I can't I'm scared, they'll get angry with me". I said to her "are you sure" and she said, "Yes I'm sure". Mum then came into the house and I said to Amber "tell mum what you told me" and Amber then did."
3. This evidence is admissible under s 65(2)(c). The circumstances are very specific, a particular conversation, at a particular place, corroborated by observed marks. The representation is lucidly and specifically recounted, in a place where Amber lived, to older trusted female relatives.
4. The probative value is relatively high on the issue of the Crown allegation of coercion and control on the part of the accused, and there is no danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs that probative value: s 137; and no reason under s 135 to exclude it.
5. Jacqueline gave evidence at the Inquest on 21 June 2011 and objection has been taken to this part of her evidence being tendered by the Crown: "Q. Did she say anything about when she was tied up how she was tied up or whether that caused her any pain or injury? A. She said that she was tied up and she showed me how she was and she was like that and - Q. Just for the record you're putting your wrists together? A. My two wrists together, yeah, yeah. Q. With your palms facing inwards? A. Yeah, something and there was a slight mark but nothing like major like - like ripped skin or anything like, they're just marks, faintly, faintly. Q. So what colour was the mark? A. Like brown colour. Q. Brown colour? A. Yeah, brown. Q. And did she tell you anything else about? A. Yes and I said what did - I said why, why - why - what you know, why, I said what, why, what did you do and she said I kicked him in the guts. Q. Did you say anything to her about reporting? A. I - yeah, yes, I said are you going to report it and she said no and I - and I said why and she said because I'm scared that they might hurt me." [1]
6. Obviously this evidence was obtained by a series of mostly leading questions based on the contents of the statement of 9 July 2002. It is not admissible under s 65(3) of the Act and so the question is whether the circumstances described are such that satisfy s 65(2)(c). Consistently with my ruling regarding this part of her statement, the circumstances are ones that satisfy s 65(2)(c) however given this particular exchange was elicited by leading questions, in the Inquest where neither accused was legally represented, and the rules of evidence did not apply, the probative value of the evidence given in that form in that context is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and is excluded from tender in that form: s 137.

Paul Harding

1. Paul Harding is Amber's cousin with whom Amber had a romantic and sexual relationship. She became pregnant to him in late 1997 and that pregnancy was terminated in early 1998. He was clearly someone she loved and trusted.
2. In his statement to police provided on 11 November 2002, Paul Harding provided a very specific account of what Amber told him in a telephone conversation in late 2001: "6. … Amber said word [sic] to the effect of, "You know what we did in the room? We got videotaped." I said, "What happened?" I can't remember her exact words, but she said something along the lines that Robert GEEVES had tied her up after watching the video tape of Amber and I having sex. She said that he tied her hands together at the wrists and did all sexual things to her. As far as I am aware she didn't want that to happen, it was rape. She didn't go into a lot of detail about what exactly happened, just sex sort of things. 7. She also said that he played the video tape in front of her and said, "tell me that's not Paul?" She said that it was me. She said that GEEVES asked her a lot of questions about it, while he was performing sexual acts on her. …"
3. I am satisfied that the circumstances in which the representation was made by Amber make it highly likely that the representation is reliable. The specificity of what was conveyed, that Paul Harding was a trusted person for Amber, that the events involved him directly and how it involved him was recounted by Amber. These circumstances are persuasive to the test under s 65(2)(c) being met.
4. The account has considerable probative value on the issue of whether Robert Geeves used coercion and control with Amber. There is no risk of unfair prejudice or factors that require exclusion: (s 137); or activate any discretion to exclude: s 135.
5. Paul Harding also gave this evidence at the Inquest on 21 June 2011 to which objection is taken: "Q. Did she tell you anything about any sexual relationship with Robert? A. Yeah she did, she said that she, he had a video camera on her and when they were finished they used, him and Anne used to watch the video when they were finished. Q. Did Amber tell you that herself? A. Amber told me that out of her own mouth." [2]
6. It appears to be different and additional to the evidence set out at [26] from paragraph 6 of his police statement. The fact in issue to which it may have probative value is a more general one of the knowledge and participation of Anne Geeves in Robert's sex life with Amber.
7. I decided to exclude the evidence under s 137 as it was given at the Inquest in response to a leading question in an environment where no rules of evidence applied. There was no cross-examination on behalf of Robert or Anne Geeves to clarify or challenge or examine the evidence.

Cindy Brown

1. Cindy Brown was a neighbour in the Clarke Street flats. She would visit Amber and Amber would visit her in late 2001 early 2002 for chats and coffee.
2. In her statement to police dated 27 June 2002, Cindy Brown said: "10. … Amber started talking about Robert GEEVES. Amber said "When he gets drunk he ties me up and has sex with me." Amber also told me about how one day she saw Anne watching a video of her and Robert having sex. Amber said that there was a video camera set up in the corner of the bedroom at Robert's house."
3. Objection is taken to the leading of this evidence on the basis that it is hearsay and does not come within any of the s 65(2) exceptions, however in my view the requirements of s 65(2)(c) are satisfied. It was Amber again confiding in a female neighbour about the same age as her, about what was occurring with Robert and Anne Geeves.
4. Ms Brown also gave evidence at the Inquest on 21 June 2011 and objection is taken to this part of it: "Q. Did Amber ever tell you anything about things that used to happen to her with Robert Geeves? A. Yep she told me that Robert Geeves tied her up and had sex with her. Q. Did she tell you anything else about that? A. That he had video cameras in the house. Q. And when she told you that, who else was there? A. Just me and her." [3]
5. This is evidence given in response to a leading question where the rules of evidence do not apply and I excluded it in that form as unfairly prejudicial to the accused: ss 135 and 137.

Angelina Goode (now Fitzgibbons)

1. Angelina Goode was a young woman with whom Amber used to socialise in late 2001. She was about the same age as Amber and a neighbour in the Clarke Street flats. Angelina was pregnant at the same time as Amber and they would have coffee and chat.
2. Ms Goode made a statement to police on 1 July 2002. At paragraph 5 she said the following, to which objection has been taken: "5. … Amber told me that Robert had previously tied her up and forced her to have sex with him."
3. In my view s 65(2)(c) is satisfied and the circumstances are such that it is highly likely the representation is reliable. Amber had a habit of sharing intimate details of her life at the Geeves house and about her relationship with the Geeves with other women, apparently seeking a response or possibly advice. This is one of those instances.

Lisa Parker

1. Ms Parker was another young woman with whom Amber socialised in 2001/2002, and who lived at the Clarke Street flats.
2. Ms Parker made a statement to police on 2 July 2002. Objection has been taken to the following: "4. … One of the things I heard was that Robert and Anne GEEVES had got her drunk, tied her up and raped her ant [sic] that was how she became pregnant. I heard this from Daphne and then Amber told me and Angelina GOODE the same thing about 2 days later …".
3. The first account is second-hand hearsay and so cannot be admitted. It is "Daphne" who told Ms Parker that this is what Amber had told Daphne.
4. The assertion that Amber "told me and Angelina Goode the same thing" about two days later does not provide sufficient specificity about what exactly the representation contained or the circumstances in which it was made to allow an assessment under s 65(2)(c), and so cannot be led.

Leon Henry

1. Leon Henry was a neighbour in the Clarke Street units. Amber would visit his wife Daphne for chats in late 2001.
2. In his statement to police dated 25 June 2002, Mr Henry mentioned a partially overhead assertion by Amber: "7. … I didn't hear all of the conversation but I remember Amber saying some thing about being tied up and videoed. I remember this because at the time I thought it was a bit strange."
3. This evidence is vague and I have excluded it on the basis that its very low probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defence. Mr Henry only partly heard the conversation and the reference points remain unclear in his recount.
4. Mr Henry also gave evidence at the Inquest on 21 June 2011: "Q. Can I ask you to explain what you heard and how you heard it and where it was? A. Well on one particular day she was there she was talking to the wife, I walked into the lounge room to ask if they wanted a cup of coffee, they were just having a general chat, they both said yes, as I walked into the kitchen Amber explained that she didn't want anything to do with Robert because Robert had videoed her and handcuffed her at his place. Now this was just her version, I don't know whether it was true or whether it wasn't. Q. Did you hear her say that? A. I heard her say that." [4]
5. Whilst this evidence at the Inquest was given in response to a non-leading question, the circumstances indicate it was a conversation he only partly overheard, as he walked into the kitchen. It was not being said to him. What he heard was not recounted with specificity. I excluded it under s 137 on the basis of the limited probative value of this account being outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defence.

Judith Khan (deceased)

1. Judith Khan is Amber's grandmother, the mother of Geoffrey Haigh, Amber's father. She and Amber often communicated by telephone. Ms Khan lived in Sydney at Merrylands then Liverpool, and then in mid-2001 moved to Lismore. Although Amber was with Judith Khan at times in Sydney, she would telephone Judith Khan once she had returned to Young. The conversations in issue were on the telephone.
2. In her statement to police dated 16 May 2003, Ms Khan stated the following to which objection has been taken: "23. … Amber said," [sic] Robert GEEVES tied me up and raped me. That's how I got pregnant. I want to move out of the house. They (indicating Anne and Robert GEEVES) showed me a video that Ann [sic] took of Robert raping me. They also had a video of me taking a bath."
3. Ms Khan is deceased and so will not be giving evidence at the trial. Tender of this part of her statement would be second-hand hearsay and is not admissible: s 62.
4. Ms Khan gave evidence at the Inquest on 22 June 2011. Objection has been taken to the tender by the Crown Prosecutor of this part of her evidence: "Q. Yes, and can you as best you can tell the court how that conversation came about, whether it was over the phone or in person and what words Amber used and how she came to make those statements? A. Yeah. I asked her about the baby's father and at first she wouldn't say, at first she told me it was Charles, she lived in Sydney, I've met Charles, and I said to her, "When's the baby due" and she told me and I said, "It would be a 12 months pregnancy if he was the father," and then she changed her mind. She changed her mind and she told me it was Stella's son, so that's all I knew at that time, but after she moved out into her flat she said she didn't know how to tell me because I wouldn't love her anymore and I said, "We will always love Amber." Do you want me to tell you what she said to me? Q. Yes? A. Yeah, she said to me, "Robert Geeves" - or she said, "Robert" but I knew she was saying Robert Geeves, "Tied me up and raped me" and his wife Anne took a video of him raping her but he also took a video of her when she was having a bath and they were going to use those videos against her and I said to her "We will always love Amber" and I said - I can't remember whether I said then, "I want you to go straight to Stella's" or whether it was after that. I'd have to look at my statement. Q. That's all right, if you need to refresh your memory, have a look at your - A. Okay - yes, that's in paragraph 23. That's right, she was - that's before she got to the flat, yes, and I told her when she said that's what happened to her, I said, "Leave now and go straight to Stella's," and it was after that she rang me and told me she had a flat. Q. So that conversation occurred before she got the flat? A. Yes." [5]
5. This recount of what Amber told Ms Khan is second-hand hearsay and so not admissible: s 62.

Patricia Haigh (deceased)

1. Patricia Haigh is Amber's aunt and the person to whom Amber entrusted the care of her child in the Will that she made in August 2001 when she was about four months pregnant.
2. Patricia Haigh lived in Goonellabah, near Lismore and so communication of the objected to conversations with Amber contained in her statement and Inquest evidence occurred by phone.
3. Patricia Haigh made a statement to police on 21 June 2002. Objection has been taken to paragraph 6: "6. Amber told me that Robert Geeves had sexually abused her on many occasions. Amber told me about one incident about being tied up to a bed. She said that she was raped and video taped while tied up. She told me this between October and November last year. She told me that it was Robert who raped her. Amber told me that the wife of Robert Geeves video taped the incident."
4. As Patricia Haigh is now deceased she cannot give evidence at this trial and so her representations as to what Amber told her are second-hand hearsay and so not admissible: s 62. Paragraph 6 cannot be admitted.
5. Patricia Haigh also gave evidence at the Inquest on 20 June 2011. Objection has been taken to the following evidence: "Q. Can I just ask you to have a look at it at paragraph 6, please? A. Yes, yes, Amber told me that Robert - Q. So you've referred in paragraph 6 there to a conversation you had with Amber where she told you something about Robert Geeves? A. That she had been sexually - sexually abused, yes. Q You go on to talk about video tapes and being tied up and things like that? A. Yes, that was all from - Amber told me this." [6] and "Q. Well, can you tell us what she said in that conversation? A. That says she was raped and videotaped, he tied her to a bed, his wife took a video about it and they held that against her so she wouldn't tell them anything - tell anybody anything because they were going to use it against her, of fear. Q. Those are effectively the words Amber used, are they? A. Yes. I think she was so fearful that one of the last conversations I had with her, that if anything happened that she wanted me to take him, take him away." [7]
6. This too is second-hand hearsay and cannot be admitted: s 62. Additionally s 65(3) does not operate to admit the evidence for the reasons I set out in R v Geeves (No. 4) at [48] to [54]. I would exclude it under s 137 as the accused have had no opportunity to cross-examine Patricia Haigh and there is a danger of unfair prejudice to the accused which outweighs the probative value of this evidence. Although the circumstances make it highly probable the representation is reliable, (s 65(3)(c)), - it is broadly consistent with other accounts Amber gave, and she had a trusting relationship with her aunt - the absence of any opportunity to cross-examine this witness about what was said underscores the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. The use of "they were going to use it against her", and the very general nature of the representation adds to the danger of unfair prejudice.
7. I understand the Crown Prosecutor's submission to be that a judge sitting alone will not misuse the evidence, or give it undue emphasis where it has not been the subject of cross-examination, but in this case, a considered application of s 137, even for a judge alone, in my view further mandates exclusion of this evidence.

Endnotes

1. Inquest transcript dated 21 June 2011, p 17 (28) to p 18 (13)
2. Inquest transcript dated 21 June 2011, p 28 (1)-(7)
3. Inquest transcript dated 21 June 2011, p 35 (40)-(48)
4. Inquest transcript dated 21 June 2011, p 52 (11)-(21)
5. Inquest transcript dated 22 June 2011, p 41 (12)-(40)
6. Inquest transcript dated 20 June 2011, p 44 (21)-(29)
7. Inquest transcript dated 20 June 2011, p 46 (46) to p 47 (3) 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: 23 September 2024