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

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

Hearsay representations were admitted only when they fell within the exceptions of s 66A as contemporaneous expressions of Amber’s state of mind, or s 65(2)(c) where objective circumstances demonstrated high probable reliability of the representation. Section 65(3) did not render inquest evidence admissible as the accused did not have a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine, neither being represented nor, for Mrs Geeves, able to be present. Where evidence was confusing, of low probative value, or potentially prejudicial, it was excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex (Crown); Accused: Robert Samuel Geeves; Accused: Anne Margaret Geeves
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence at Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Objections upheld in part; certain evidence excluded; specified representations admitted or excluded with reasons.
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Admissibility of Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Murder, Contemporaneous Statement, Witness Unavailability
Evidence Criminal Law Procedure Hearsay Admissibility of Evidence Criminal Procedure Murder Contemporaneous Statement +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecutor

Robert Samuel Geeves

Accused

Anne Margaret Geeves

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence at Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay evidence from witness statements and inquest evidence is admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule
  2. 2 Application of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 65(2), 65(3), 66A, 135, 137 to specific representations
  3. 3 Whether accused had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine inquest witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

Hearsay representations were admitted only when they fell within the exceptions of s 66A as contemporaneous expressions of Amber’s state of mind, or s 65(2)(c) where objective circumstances demonstrated high probable reliability of the representation. Section 65(3) did not render inquest evidence admissible as the accused did not have a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine, neither being represented nor, for Mrs Geeves, able to be present. Where evidence was confusing, of low probative value, or potentially prejudicial, it was excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Objections upheld in part; certain evidence excluded; specified representations admitted or excluded with reasons.

Orders

  • At [54] general ruling regarding Inquest evidence;
  • At [59], [60], [62], [64], [66]: Rulings regarding evidence of Stella Nealon;