Judicial appointments Tasmanian style … Nudge, nudge … Greens’ accusation about favouritism inflames Willy Hodgman … News from The Map 

Was Justice Greg Geason parachuted into the Tasmanian Supreme Court vacancy by forces associated with his old pal the premier Willy Hodgman? 

Did the judicial selection panel actually recommend barrister Philip Jackson for appointment as a judge to fill the vacancy left by Justice Shan Tennent? 

These are questions among many others are on numerous Tasmanian lips following Greens’ parliamentary leader Cassy O’Connor asking Hodgman on Tuesday (Nov. 28) whether Justice Geason initially applied for the job or was he prompted to do so by the government. 

O’Connor claims that the selection panel recommended the appointment of Jackson. In question time she asked the premier: 

“How do you explain to Tasmanians who are becoming increasingly concerned about the evidence of nepotism on your watch, why you ignored the recommendation of the selection panel to appoint Philip Jackson SC as Tasmania’s next Supreme Court judge?” 

Willy rejected the claims and said the Greens’ leader was “stooping to new depths”. 

As Theodora reported earlier this month, Geason worked at two Hobart law shops with young Will – Wallace Wilkinson & Webster and Murdoch Clarke. He was also best man at his wedding to Mrs Hodgman. 

Geason had spent about 10 years at the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal and he was chairman of the Parole Board. Jackson has a common law practice. 

“[He] has made some brave decisions lately, like knocking back a hideous walkway on Battery Point foreshore and an even less attractive skyscraping hotel planned by Sydney developers in the Hobart CBD. More likely to become SG if O’Farrell goes upstairs.” 

Local bar president Chris Gunson has weighed into the furore, explaining that he was a member of the selection panel and to him everything seemed kosher. 

He said that Geason was one of a number of applicants who … 

“were assessed against the published selection criteria and those applicants who were considered suitable for appointment were shortlisted to be interviewed by the panel … Mr Geason was considered suitable for appointment, and together with other applicants, was invited to be interviewed.” 

Geason’s name was among those forwarded to the then acting attorney general, Matthew Groom, “with advice that each of them was considered suitable for appointment”. 

Gunson insists that no recommendation was made in relation to any of them beyond an assessment that they were suitable. 

Groom then discussed “two applicants” with the bar president, the CJ and the then president of the Tas Law Society. Later the bar prez was consulted by the acting secretary of the Department of Justice and confirmed he was not aware of any reason why Geason should not be appointed as a Supreme Court judge. 

A selection panel traditionally doesn’t give thumps-up to any one candidate, rather it filters and sends a couple of finalists to the minister and from there the government makes its pick. That doesn’t mean that Geason was nudged to apply. 

By not taking part of the process everyone in government knew the premier’s preference. In the way these things work, with no direct fingerprints on anything, Geason always had the inside track. 

According to the Greens, Willy has enough on his plate. He has also lost the head of his department, the highly regarded Greg Johannes, who couldn’t stand the premier’s chief-of-staff, Brad Stansfield. Brad used to work for Gruppenführer Abetz.