R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 6) [2024] NSWSC 998

R v Geeves; R v Geeves (No. 6) [2024] NSWSC 998

Section 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was not engaged as the witness's evidence was not necessarily unfavourable to the Crown, nor was there a basis to conclude she was not making a genuine attempt to give evidence on matters she may reasonably be supposed to have knowledge about. Any inconsistencies were minor and her account was consistent with previous statements; demeanour alone was insufficient to justify leave to cross-examine as an unfavourable witness.

Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: Robert Samuel Geeves; Accused: Anne Margaret Geeves
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Murder Trial / Application for Leave to Cross Examine Own Witness During Trial
Outcome
Leave to cross-examine refused
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Unfavourable Witnesses, Leave to Cross Examine Own Witness
Evidence Law Criminal Law Cross Examination Unfavourable Witnesses Leave to Cross Examine Own Witness

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

Robert Samuel Geeves

Accused

Anne Margaret Geeves

Accused

Procedural Posture

Murder Trial / Application for Leave to Cross Examine Own Witness During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was engaged to permit the Crown to cross-examine its own witness as an unfavourable witness
  2. 2 Whether the evidence given by Ursula Kirk was unfavourable or showed she was not making a genuine attempt to give evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Section 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was not engaged as the witness's evidence was not necessarily unfavourable to the Crown, nor was there a basis to conclude she was not making a genuine attempt to give evidence on matters she may reasonably be supposed to have knowledge about. Any inconsistencies were minor and her account was consistent with previous statements; demeanour alone was insufficient to justify leave to cross-examine as an unfavourable witness.

Court Disposition

Leave to cross-examine refused

Orders

  • Leave to the Crown to cross-examine Ursula Kirk (O'Sioda) refused