Judge Gregory Geason on trial: ‘Bruising … points to assault’, says expert

A court has heard from several specialist doctors who examined the bruises of Tasmanian judge Gregory Geason’s fiancee, claiming the injuries were suggestive of assault.

Gregory Geason leaves the Hobart Magistrates Court. Picture: Chris Kidd

A judge’s fiancee had “bruises everywhere” after an alleged ­assault by him, and had suffered multiple blunt force injuries suggestive of assault, medical experts have told a court.

Tasmanian judge Gregory Geason is on trial in Hobart’s Magistrates Court, where he has pleaded not guilty to one count of common assault and one of emotional abuse or intimidation.

The assault charge relates to an incident at Justice Geason’s Hobart home on October 31, in which his former fiancee alleges he held her tightly by the arms, struck her up to eight times on the chest and caused her to fall, injuring her head.

Justice Geason’s defence has suggested during proceedings that the arm hold was instead akin to a precursor to a “cuddle” and the woman was drunk and fell, rather than being pushed.

The court on Thursday heard from several specialist doctors who had examined the woman’s bruises, either in person when she presented at Bendigo Hospital days after the incident, or later in photographs.

Sinead Taylor, specialist emer­gency physician at the hospital, told the court some of the bruises she observed were “almost handprint-shaped” and “looked like finger marks”.

“There were so many bruises all over her arms,” she said.

She diagnosed the woman, who was tremulous and unsure on her feet, with concussion, and examined the 18 bruises, which covered “so many body areas”, including arms, legs, thighs, hip, chest and back.

The woman had “bruising everywhere”.

“I don’t think anyone who had a fall would get that pattern of injuries,” Dr Taylor said, of some of the bruises. “It would be very unusual to get those sorts of bruises just from falling.”

Photographs of the bruises taken by Dr Taylor were later examined by Canberra-based forensic medical expert Vanita Parekh, who told the court they suggested “multiple applications of blunt force”.

Some bruises were in protected areas of the body, such as the inside arm. “These are unlikely to have resulted from accidental injuries,” Dr Parekh said.

Instead, these bruises were “very likely to have been the result of an assault”, while some were “likely to be from a ­grabbing-type scenario”.

There had been, in her opinion, “more than one application of force” to the woman’s chest and breast area.

“The pattern is such that it is likely to be inflicted rather than accidental,” Dr Parekh said of bruising on the right side of the woman’s chest.

She believed with a high degree of confidence that at least three bruises were “inflicted injuries”, while a further two were “likely inflicted”. The rest could possibly have been accidental.

The defence has suggested the woman had a medical condition that caused her to at times take blood-thinners, which could make her more prone to bruising. Dr Parekh said this would not “explain away” some of the bruises.

A work colleague of the woman gave evidence that she told him the day after the alleged assault that she “feared for her life if she went home”.

However, police bodycam footage showed to the court depicts Justice Geason denying the woman was at any risk, adding that he had “nothing to do with” her bruising.

Justice Geason is on leave from the state Supreme Court.