Child protection workers were worried about Amber Haigh and her newborn son because of an earlier “incident of extreme violence” that occurred at the home of the baby’s father when a woman was found tied up in a wheelbarrow with a bag on her head and dead from a gunshot wound, the New South Wales supreme court has heard.
Robert Geeves, who the court has heard fathered Amber Haigh’s child, is on trial for Haigh’s murder, alongside his wife, Anne Geeves.
Both have pleaded not guilty to murdering Haigh, who was a 19-year-old mother when she vanished without a trace from the NSW Riverina in June 2002, leaving behind her five-month-old son.
On Monday, Jacqueline Thompson, a child protection worker, gave detailed evidence about her work for the NSW Department Of Community Services (DOCs) when she assessed the welfare of Haigh and her son.
She told the court she accessed police files that documented Robert Geeves’ criminal history.
“Mr Geeves was in a relationship with a woman and there was an incident of extreme violence where his partner was found in a wheelbarrow, tied up in a garage on the property and had a bag over her head and had died from a gunshot wound,” she said.
Thompson said there was also an earlier incident detailed in the police files regarding two schoolgirls who had gone missing who were ultimately found on Geeves’ property.
“There were concerns about Mr Geeves’ criminal history,” Thompson told the court.
In court, Thompson was taken to DOCs case notes concerning Haigh and her son which were written between the birth of Haigh’s son in January 2002 and after her disappearance in the middle of that year.
Haigh, who had an intellectual disability, was living in the Geeveses’ marital home in early 2002, and Thompson’s notes state there was a concern she “was being held against her will in the home”.
Thompson said there were concerns – “given Amber’s vulnerabilities … around Amber being exploited to have a baby for the purpose of Mr and Mrs Geeves wanting a baby”.
Nurses and DOCs staff were also worried because Haigh’s child was not being taken to appointments with a baby health nurse, and Haigh, who had epilepsy as well as an intellectual impairment, was not accessing health services, Thompson said.
Under cross-examination Thompson told the court the “narrative” around Haigh being held at the Geeves’ home “against her will” had come from Amber’s great-aunt, as well as from police and other sources.
Thompson said her inspections of the Geeves’ home found no immediate safety concerns for the baby.
Thompson remains under cross-examination.
Earlier on Monday, a woman who had an affair with Robert Geeves and bore him a child after Amber Haigh’s disappearance told the court she and Geeves never discussed the teenager’s unexplained disappearance during their six-year relationship.
After spending the morning in the witness box, Ursula O’Sioda was – in the words of Justice Julia Lonergan – “evasive, obnoxious, and guarded, and her tone was arch” in her evidence, in which she claimed she never recalled hearing anything about Haigh’s disappearance.
Appearing under force of subpoena, O’Sioda told the court she refused to re-read her statement to police when requested before giving evidence, saying, “I don’t wish to be here. I have other things to do with my life.”
She repeatedly told the court she “could not recall” details of conversations with Geeves, his wife, Anne, or with police.
O’Sioda had asked to be allowed to enter Wagga Wagga courthouse via an alternative entry, to avoid being seen publicly or photographed by the media, but the judge refused.
After Haigh’s disappearance, O’Sioda began a relationship with Robert Geeves. The pair never talked about Haigh’s disappearance, she told the court, despite continuing police interest in Geeves, and O’Sioda being interviewed by detectives on more than one occasion.
Crown prosecutor Paul Kerr made an application to treat O’Sioda as an unfavourable witness, one who was not “making a genuine attempt to give evidence”.
The crown’s submission, paraphrased by the judge, was that O’Sioda had lied in telling police, the coroner, and in her evidence at this trial, that she never had a discussion about Haigh.
“Really what you’re saying is she was lying then, and she’s lying now,” Lonergan said.
The judge denied the crown’s application, but said that she could reject O’Sioda’s evidence.
“I may think she’s a liar from beginning to end.”
O’Sioda told the court her last conversation with Robert Geeves was on Sunday evening, the day before she gave evidence in his murder trial. She said they only spoke briefly before she passed the phone on to their son – anonymised for this court hearing – so he could speak to his father.
Amber Haigh’s unresolved disappearance has been an enduring mystery in NSW’s Riverina, where she was last seen alive more than two decades ago. She left behind a five-month-old son who the court has heard she “adored” and “never let out of her sight”.
Haigh’s body has never been found, but the court has heard a coroner has ruled she died from “homicide or misadventure”.
The prosecution has alleged in court that Haigh – described in court as “very easily misled” – was used by Robert and Anne Geeves as a “surrogate mother” because they wanted another baby.
Haigh was last seen on 5 June 2002. The Geeveses say they drove her that evening from Kingsvale to Campbelltown railway station so she could visit her dying father in hospital, and have not heard from her since.
They told police Haigh willingly left her infant son in their custody.
The Geeveses reported Haigh missing a fortnight later, on 19 June 2002.
The court has previously heard the Geeveses had had one child together – a son the same age as Haigh, who had previously dated her – but the couple wanted more children, having subsequently endured three miscarriages and a stillbirth.
“The crown case theory is that it was always the intention of the Geeveses to assume the custody and care of [the child] from Amber, but they knew that to do that, Amber had to be removed from the equation … so, the crown asserts, they killed her,” crown prosecutor Paul Kerr said.
Lawyers for Robert and Anne Geeves argued the case against the couple – now more than two decades old – was deeply flawed, arguing that “community distaste” at Robert Geeves’ relationship with “a much younger woman with intellectual disabilities” fuelled “gossip and innuendo”.
“Everything they did was viewed through a haze of mistrust and suspicion,” the court has heard.
The judge-alone trial continues in Wagga Wagga.
