Assault judge Gregory Geason quits, avoiding parliamentary vote to remove him

Gregory Geason tendered his resignation from the Supreme Court ‘with immediate effect’ after he was convicted of assaulting and emotionally abusing his former fiancee.

Gregory Geason was issued a 12-month community corrections order, including 100 hours of community work. Picture: Nikki Davis-Jones

A judge convicted of assaulting and emotionally abusing his fiancee has resigned, heading off a parliamentary vote to sack him.

The Tasmanian government on Monday said it had received confirmation that Justice Gregory Geason had tendered his resignation from the Supreme Court “with immediate effect”.

Mr Geason was on Thursday last week convicted of the charges, to which he had pleaded not guilty in the Hobart Magistrates Court.

The 63-year-old, appointed to the bench in 2017, had been on leave from his $500,000-plus job, pending the outcome of the case.

Had he not resigned, Attorney-General Guy Barnett had flagged he would move a motion in parliament on Tuesday asking Governor Barbara Baker to remove him.

Mr Geason was found guilty in October of one count of emotional abuse or intimidation and of one count of assault.

On Thursday, Victorian Deputy Chief Magistrate Susan Wakeling recorded convictions for both charges and issued a 12-month community corrections order, including 100 hours of community work.

In addition, Ms Wakeling, who heard the case owing to the fact that all local magistrates knew Mr Geason, ordered he continue psychiatric or psychological treatment and extend it to “develop insight into your offending behaviour”.

The government is yet to clarify what payments or benefits Mr Geason will receive, but had previously suggested it would not pay him anything beyond his legal entitlements.

In deciding against a prison term, which could have been up to three years, Ms Wakeling said she took into account that the court case had damaged Mr Geason’s reputation, career and public standing.

“Your 30-year legal career is at an end,” she said. “This is a consequence that flows directly from the findings of the court.”

Ms Wakeling said a conviction was appropriate as a vindication of the complainant, whose life had been severely impacted by Mr Geason’s offending.

She told the judge his offending was “serious” and had a “profound impact” on his former partner, who told the court she had suffered an extended period without the ability to work and a “loss of faith in the legal system” in which she had a career.

The victim told the court Mr Geason’s offending had impacted her relationships, including with her children, her social life and led to hyper-vigilance and difficulty leaving her home or answering the door.