Every so often a judge looms into the headlights whose conduct is so damming that you wonder how the judicial appointment was made in the first place and why he is still there.
So it is with Gregory Peter Geason, a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. He was appointed under the Old Mates Act, as a friend and colleague of the then Premier Will Hodgman – who observed Tasmania’s unique arms-length procedures.
Temporary Magistrate Susan Wakeling (on loan from Victoria where she is Deputy Chief Madge) made findings on October 16 that Geason was guilty of an offence under the Family Violence Act, 2004, Tas. – emotional abuse and intimidation, section 9; and assault under section 35(1) of the Police Offences Act, 1935, Tas.
The evidence accepted by the magistrate shows a judge exhibiting a child-like temperament, jealousy, insecurity, anger, abuse, intimidation, and bullying.
Not pretty at all – although Geason could also switch on the charm in a blokey, matey, have-a-drink kinda way.
While on leave from judging duties he has hung onto his judicial appointment and collected pay of $562,540 pa. The Tasmanian taxpayer is also stumping up for Acting Justice Brian Ross Martin (ex CJ of the NT) to carry some of the absentee’s workload.
Following the magistrate’s guilty verdict Geason said he’ll make a statement “in due course”. So far he’s been schtumm. Sentencing is set for November 14.
Picking through the wreckage of Geeson’s emotional meltdowns outlined in the judgment it is amazing that, for the standing of the court and the health of the Apple Isle justice system, he hasn’t gone into the library and set fire to his judicial robes.
Here’s a smattering of the findings made beyond reasonable doubt that go to demonstrating his course of conduct amounting to intimidation and abuse:
• Strolling home after dinner with friends in Hobart, the judge verbally abused the complainant, repeatedly calling her a “slut” while she sat on a park bench crying.
• He regularly expected the complainant to accompany him home at lunchtime and if she wanted to do something else he “disparaged her alternative plans” and nagged her for information: “Who are you seeing, where are you going?”
• On occasions when Geason and the complainant argued he would call her “Sarah”, which is the name of his former fiancée. He told her that Sarah also argued with him and they were both “sluts”.
This is likely to be his former associate Sarah Gregory who was snogging on his lap at Hobart’s Grand Poobah at the opening of the law term in 2021, resulting in the judge being “counselled to protect the reputation of the court”.
Later Ms Gregory fled to Victoria leaving in her wake a claim for compensation – alleging she was “shamed and humiliated, accused of misconduct, and subjected to punitive sanctions without any fair processes being followed”.
• He described the complainant’s CV as “shit” and “embarrassing”.
• He used the FindMy phone function to monitor her movements, so when she went for an after-work drink with a colleague and didn’t take her phone, Geason became angry. He berated her at home for two hours with his temper worsening, calling her a “disgrace”. If she turned off the FindMy phone function she was required to explain her whereabouts.
• He also has surveillance cameras at the house, and could monitor her movements. He was furious when she turned one of the cameras to the wall … “How dare you …”
• He was jealous that she received a gift of books from a male friend for her birthday. He became abusive and angry and started throwing things around the room.
• He refused to walk up Mt Wellington with her, because she had made the same trek with a previous partner.
• If the complainant mentioned highly qualified male friends, the accused would describe then as “plumbers” or “drug dealers”.
• When the complainant was in Canberra she went to the Novotel for a waxing appointment. She used the judge’s Uber account for the trip home. When she got back to Hobart, Geason interrogated her about why she was leaving the hotel early in the morning by Uber. He suspected she had spent the night with someone else.
• Geason bullied the complainant into signing a loan application with which she was not happy and had independent advice not to sign. While she was refusing to sign the judge became verbally abusive, throwing the papers around the room and declaring: “Our relationship is over … You’ve ruined me.”
She packed her bags and went to a hotel – but unfortunately the booking had not been received and she had no option but to return home, in despair.
He proposed that she provide $300,000 collateral from her property in Canberra for the purchase of a new house in Hobart. The judge said he would find $50,000 for a deposit, the balance would be secured by a joint mortgage and they would be tenants-in-common.
• The complainant asked for Geason’s help drafting a letter to the father of her children. He prefaced the letter “Dear Cunt”. However, Magistrate Wakeling found that this complaint, on the evidence, was intended as a joke.
Assault
Geason: within range of a pub
If the emotional abuse and intimidation weren’t bad enough, the circumstances of the assault were no less attractive.
Magistrate Wakeling was satisfied that the complainant was a witness of truth and the accused was not.
The assault occurred after the complainant has quaffed three glasses of pinot grigio. When Geason arrived home he opened a bottle and began to drink. He did not dispute that he drank six to eight glasses of wine over the evening.
She was looking at messages from her work colleague Darien Williams and began to delete them because she knew the judge would be angry if he found she had received the texts.
She had opened a photo of Williams pulling a face when the judge grabbed her phone and went through her messages, becoming more and more angry.
“Who is this person? Who do you think you are? You’re disgusting. You’re a slut.”
She tried to assure him that “nothing was going on” with Darien Williams.
He grabbed her very tightly by the arms and she screamed in pain. Geason then started punching her in the chest and breasts, pushing her so she flew backwards and cracked her head on the mantlepiece.
Geason told her: “Oh, you’re so pissed you tripped.” This happened a year ago, on October 31, 2023.
The following day, in an effort to get out of the house she made another appointment for waxing. After speaking to the police she left Tasmania on November 3, 2023.
The magistrate found the application of force was intentional, it was not reasonably necessary for the “common intercourse of life” and it took place without consent.
≈ ≈ ≈
An appeal by Geason to the Tasmanian Supreme Court, even with foreign judges presiding, would create further expense and embarrassment.
The Tasmanian parliament is struggling to produce coherent legislation to deal with the removal of judges.
It’s not as though Geason is a brilliant judge. He has been found wanting by his colleagues on a number of important occasions for quite basic errors.
We’ve reported here that Geason was quashed for apprehended bias; and here he forgot about how cases should be pleaded since the adoption of the Judicature Act; and here he messed up a sentencing decision.
There’s a Greg Geason in Hobart who does quite a bit of posting on Facebook, with cheesy thoughts and images. It must be a different Greg Geason from Hobart, surely.