Background
Anne and Robert Geeves were charged in May 2022 with the murder of Amber Haigh, who disappeared in June 2002 and whose body has not been found. Following a judge-alone trial in 2024, Lonergan J acquitted both applicants of murder.
The applicants then sought certificates under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). The Crown did not oppose the applications, but submitted that the grant of certificates remained discretionary.
The Court’s Holding
Lonergan J granted certificates to each applicant. The Court found that, had the prosecution possessed all relevant facts before commencing proceedings, it would not have been reasonable to institute the murder charges.
The prosecution case depended materially on James Arber’s account and alleged incriminating statements in listening-device recordings. Police investigation had undermined Arber’s account in critical respects, including its suggested connection to 5 June 2002. The Court also found that the alleged incriminating utterances could not be heard in the recordings and did not exist as evidence. The remaining circumstantial case was vague and based on suspicion, while the applicants’ account of taking Amber to Campbelltown could not be disproved.
The Court further found that neither applicant had done or omitted anything unreasonable that contributed to the institution or continuation of the prosecution. There was no discretionary reason to refuse the certificates.
Key Takeaways
- A costs certificate may be granted after an acquittal where instituting the prosecution would not have been reasonable on all relevant facts.
- Prosecutors must objectively assess the whole evidentiary case, including inherent weaknesses in purportedly central evidence.
- A certificate is not itself an assessment or payment of costs; those matters are dealt with under the statutory scheme.
Why It Matters
The decision is a strong application of the statutory protection for acquitted defendants where a prosecution proceeded despite evidence that key asserted pillars were unreliable or absent. It underscores that suspicion, even in a long-running missing-person investigation, cannot substitute for a sound evidentiary basis to prosecute.