Since he was charged in November, Justice Gregory Geason has been on leave, declaring he would not hear matters until his case was resolved. Photo: Supreme Court of Tasmania.
The Tasmanian Government has introduced a new framework to manage judicial complaints, while one of its Supreme Court justices is on leave to defend himself against allegations of assault and emotional abuse.
Brian Martin was reappointed to Tasmania’s Supreme Court in November last year, after Justice Gregory Geason received two charges from an unnamed woman. She claims he grabbed, shook and pushed her into a mantelpiece, which caused bruising to her arms and chest, along with a concussion.
Justice Gleason has pleaded not guilty to both charges, with his team claiming the use of force was “consensual”. He told the court the woman had tripped and fallen due to alcohol intoxication, with the bruising on her upper arms caused by him lifting her.
However, Crown Prosecutor Neill Hutton believes the defence’s narrative is “contrived and false”.
After the defence and prosecution wrapped up their arguments last week, Mr Hutton said the magistrate must now decide on whether Justice Geason or the woman’s version of events is true.
Other than the assault, the woman alleges Justice Geason put her through emotional abuse by using “vicious” insults, tracking her movements and pressuring her into selling her house for a deposit on a loan.
His defence rejected the charge, arguing they could track each other’s devices using normal technology and that she had agreed with the loan concession.
The court also listed internet searches by Justice Geason in the period following his alleged assault, which included ”help me I’m abusive”, ”support for men who use violence”, ”best songs to say I’m sorry”, ”assault charges in Tasmania” and ”violence prevention, EveryMan”.
Justice Geason acknowledged making some of the searches, but noted his relatives also may have.
Victorian Deputy Chief Magistrate Susan Wakeling is presiding over the case in lieu of a Tasmanian magistrate. She is expected to hand down her decision on 16 October.
In the wake of this controversy, Attorney-General Guy Barnett has introduced the Judicial Commissions Bill 2024.
Under the framework, complaints can be made anonymously about a judicial officer’s behaviour or physical or mental capacity. However, they cannot be made solely on dissatisfaction with an officer’s decision.
It also provides an avenue for judicial officers to be immediately suspended from office in certain circumstances, including where they have been charged with an offence that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Once the complaint has been made, a Judicial Council will measure the conduct against accepted standards before making a decision. This council would also be able to appoint a judicial commission to examine a complaint in two scenarios:
- If the council is satisfied there are reasonable prospects of the complaint being wholly or partly substantiated
- If both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution for the examination of a complaint by a judicial commission.
According to the details, this council would consist of:
- Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (head of the council)
- Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court
- An Australian legal practitioner appointed by the Minister for Justice on the joint nomination of the Law Society of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Bar
- A member appointed by the Minister for Justice who:
- Is not, and has not been in the last five years, an Australian lawyer
- Is not, and has never been, a member of any Australian parliament
- In the Minister’s opinion, has the qualifications and experience to assist the council.
