• Headnote
  • Posts
  • Hearing for charges against judge concludes

Hearing for charges against judge concludes

Yesterday was the final hearing day for charges against Tasmanian Supreme Court justice Gregory Geason.

July 23, 2024

Was this email forwarded to you?

Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au

Daily wrap  

  • Foreword to Statutory Interpretation in Australia 10ed 2024 by Stephen Gageler

    Fittingly, I have written this foreword in the chambers first occupied by Sir Garfield Barwick in the High Court building in the parliamentary triangle which lies at the seat of national government in Canberra. Sir Garfield was personally involved in the design of the building. The chambers have windows which face north. They also have a small vertical angled window which protrudes to the south-west. According to his biographer, Sir Garfield had the window installed so that he could look out on Parliament House several hundred metres away. That view, in the distance, is symbolic.
     

  • Remembering Sir Cyril Walsh KB - Stephen Gageler
     

  • Welcome Ceremony for the Hon. Justice Belinda Rigg - Wednesday 24 July 2024 @ 9.15 AM - YouTube
     

  • Re Terei (No 3) [2024] VSC 423 (19 July 2024)
    [7] The unusual and troubling aspect is the allegation that Ms Terei has attempted to pervert the course of justice by lying about her Aboriginality.

    …

    [9] Before this Court there was evidence by way of affidavit that Ms Terei inherited her Aboriginality from her maternal line and that her mother passed away when she was three years old. This evidence was obtained on instructions from Ms Terei.

    [10] In most cases, and certainly in my experience, proof of Aboriginality has not been an issue and is ordinarily not challenged. Evidence of a person’s Aboriginality is provided by affidavit as occurred in this case. This is an appropriate manner in which evidence of this kind is to be provided to the Court for the purpose of a bail application. I can see no reason why this should change or that an applicant or their legal representative should be required to do anything more than set out the basis of a person’s Aboriginality as was done in this case. The circumstances of this case are unique and allegedly involve blatant deception about an individual’s Aboriginality.
     

We welcome your feedback, which you can send to [email protected]