Around 5.30pm on a Friday in early December, two journalists were waiting on a public footpath in Hobart, outside a door labelled “after-hours court entrance”.
The door led to a courtroom where, they had been told, Tasmanian Supreme Court Justice Gregory Geason would be appearing on assault and emotional abuse charges, to which he pleaded not guilty.
That someone of his standing in the legal system would be facing such charges was, it should come as little surprise, of interest to media organisations.
But the door was locked.
With access to the court closed off, a flurry of calls, texts and emails were sent, requesting reporters be allowed to enter the court and report on the hearing — in the interests of open justice.
The entrance remained locked.
An hour later, Justice Geason was led from the building on bail by a court security guard, with a prosecutor helping him into an unmarked police car which drove him home.
The exclusion of the media — and the confusion surrounding how the government could address the issue of a sitting judge facing criminal charges — would spark a debate about freedom of the press, and result in Tasmania’s parliament being recalled, apparently for nothing.
How it unfolded
Documents released under right to information have detailed the process by which the decision was made to keep reporters out — and who made it.
It was just after 1:00pm on December 1 when the administrator of the Hobart Magistrates Court, Yolanda Prenc, first learned that a high-profile defendant was expected to appear later that day.
Gregory Geason, a Supreme Court Justice since 2017, a man with 30 years’ experience in the law who had worked as a crown prosecutor in the Federal Court and who had been a barrister since 2010, had been arrested and charged by Tasmania Police.
At 3:30pm, police released a statement to the media that a “62-year-old Hobart man” was expected to appear at an out-of-hours court hearing that evening.
At 4:50pm, police told the court administrator they were ready to “progress the matter”.
At the time, several journalists were already at the court reception, but court staff were convinced it would not happen that evening, or if it did, it would be at 7:00pm before a justice of the peace, which is usually the case for out-of-hours hearings.
The journalists had to leave the building at 5:00pm when the court was closed for the day.
A few minutes later, Magistrate Chris Webster confirmed he would be able to hear the matter at 5:30pm in one of the standard courtrooms, where he had just finished custody matters.
At that point, arrangements were made to bring Justice Geason to the court.
Media denied entry, ‘then it all kicked off’
It wasn’t until 5:29pm — one minute before the hearing started — that Ms Prenc told Justice Department media head Jennifer Lee that the Geason hearing would be at 5:30pm.
At that time, two remaining journalists were already waiting at the after-hours entrance.
At 5:40pm, Ms Lee told the ABC that someone would come down “and let media in”.
This advice changed soon after. In the documents, obtained by the ABC, Ms Lee told colleagues it was a “miscommunication”.
“Yolanda [Prenc] called me back and said that the media were not able to attend, so I went back and said ‘apologies, my earlier advice was incorrect and the media are unable to enter’,” she wrote.
“Then it all kicked off.”
‘Not enough security’
After the hearing, Justice Geason was escorted from the main entrance about 6:30pm by a security guard. A prosecutor then helped him into a waiting unmarked police car.
Police said this was because Justice Geason’s phone had been seized and he had no way of arranging his own transport.
At 6:47pm, Ms Prenc gave her reasons for barring the media from the hearing.
In an email, she wrote only two security guards remained for the after-hours session, which was “not enough security to ensure safety in the building as a whole”.
She also said “to my knowledge, media do not ordinarily attend after-hours courts, nor was access usually permitted”.
Her other reasons were the sensitive nature of a family violence hearing, and that police had indicated that they would seek a suppression order.
Neither of these reasons usually prevent the media from attending.
Ms Prenc wrote she had “since learned that on some occasions if media are here waiting outside, security will let them in if they’re letting others into the court”.
Administrator says ‘absolutely no intended obstruction’
As the evening wore on — and media articles started to appear, describing how it had been locked out of Justice Geason’s hearing — department staff realised they would need to come up with a response.
Ms Prenc, who had been court administrator since April, told Justice Department secretary Ginna Webster that she had not meant to cause offence.
“I’m more than happy for [Mercury journalist] David Killick to know that there was absolutely no intended obstruction,” Ms Prenc wrote.
“But rather, [it was] a decision made by a reasonably new administrator who had put security/safety before open justice, but has learned a valuable lesson as a result.”
The media was later given a brief outline of the hearing outcome, and the following day an audio recording was distributed.
In Tasmania, the media is only allowed to report on the outcome of bail hearings — not the specific details.
Ms Webster described the events of the day as an “unprecedented situation”.
Attorney-General ‘keen to understand’
The next day, the deputy chief magistrate outlined that the decision to keep the court closed was made “based on the facts available at the time”, including the indication that a suppression order was being sought.
Ms Webster requested a brief be written for Attorney-General Guy Barnett.
She said that Mr Barnett was “keen to understand” what Justice Geason had been charged with.
He also wanted to know how the decision was made to hear the matter at 5:30pm, how Justice Geason had been escorted out of court, and why the media was not granted access.
Mr Barnett then requested a transcript of the proceeding before cabinet met on the Monday.
In the brief for Mr Barnett, the court administrator admitted mistakes had been made.
“It is accepted that the denial of media access to the court was an incorrect decision and accordingly a formal apology from the Administrator was communicated,” Ms Prenc wrote.
Justice Geason will next appear in court on February 6.
LoadingLoading…