UPDATED: Full legal document posted, along with some spectacular quotes from the judge. See below.
In a huge victory for climate skeptics everywhere, Judge Salvatore Vasta finds all findings made by James Cook University, including his sacking, were all unlawful.
WUWT readers helped make this possible.
The order follows: h/t to @GideonCRozner and CTM
Background on the court case
In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef.
There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on. It has to be stopped.
Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.
UPDATE: Peter writes via his GoFundMe page:
Dear All,
Excellent news.
My lawyers have told me that the judge handed down his decision and we seem to have won on all counts.
It all happened very quickly and we had no warning , and because I live almost a thousand miles from the court, I was not able to be there. I have still not seen the written judgement and will update you all when I have that information.
Needless to say, I have to thank all 2500 of you, and all the bloggers, and the IPA and my legal team who donated much of their time free for this success. But mostly I want to thank my dearest Cheryl, who quite by chance has been my bestest friend for exactly 40 years today. It just shows what a team effort can achieve.
The next chapter of this saga must now be written by the JCU Council which is the governing body of JCU. What will they do about the VC and SDVC who were responsible for bringing the university into disrepute, not just in North Queensland, but also around the world. JCU crushed dissent, crushed academic freedom and tried to crush my spirit with their appalling behaviour. They only failed because I had your support. But if the JCU council does not act, they will be complicit in this disgraceful episode.
Attention must now focus on the JCU council.
I will update you shortly when I have more information, but for now I certainly have a spring in my step.
kind regards
Peter
Help spread the word!
UPDATE2: Here is the full legal document. (PDF)
ridd-v-james-cook-university-2019-fcca-997
Some excerpts:
217. Professor Ridd’s statement, that when he asked if he could mention them to his wife, he was not given permission, is the truth. It was not until 19 September 2017, that the University deigned to allow him to talk to his wife about these matters.
218. Whilst none of this makes any difference at all to my ultimate decision, the actions of the University in this respect are, quite frankly, appalling. They have had no regard for the anguish that Professor Ridd felt between 24 August 2017 and 19 September 2017. There has not even been an apology for what can only be seen as extremely callous behaviour. This is inexcusable.
219. Instead, Professor Ridd is accused of being misleading and untruthful because, even though the University eventually allowed him to talk to his wife, he did not mention this when he made statements on his WordPress website.
220. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular statement.
221. The irony is even more spectacular when one considers that, in his original email to the journalist in 2016, Professor Ridd took the institutions to task for being misleading regarding the use of photographs. It seems the University found no problem with the use of those photographs because there was a footnote that led to the Wachenfeld article.
222. And yet when Professor Ridd pointed out that there was a hyperlink to all of the 2017 disciplinary process material (which would include the 19 September 2017 letter and the subsequent final censure), he is found guilty of a Code of Conduct violation for being misleading. One could be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their own.
223. The University still sought to justify this finding on the basis of a breach of the Code of Conduct. I disagree.
224. Professor Ridd was expressing his opinion about the operations of JCU and expressing disagreement with decisions of JCU.
225. I find that Professor Ridd was exercising his rights pursuant to cl.14.2 and cl.14.4 of the EA when he made these comments.
…
235. This is an extremely peculiar finding by the University. The University has found that Professor Ridd preferred his own interests, and those of the Institute of Public Affairs (“the IPA”), above the interests of the University. The University found that this was in breach of the obligations under the Code of Conduct to “take reasonable steps to avoid, or disclose and manage, any conflict of interest (actual, potential or perceived) in the course of employment”.
236. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.
…
296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.
297. Many aspects of the Code of Conduct cannot sit with the concept of intellectual freedom and certainly contravene cl.14. For example, the Code speaks of the need to “value academic freedom, and enquire, examine, criticise and challenge in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth”. The University has denounced Professor Ridd because his enquiry, examination, criticism and challenge was not, in their view, done in the collegial and academic spirit. But there is no need for such enquiry, examination, criticism or challenge to be done that way under the rights conferred upon Professor Ridd by cl.14.
298. The University have been at pains to say that it is not what Professor Ridd has said, but rather the manner in which he has said it, that is the underlying reason for the censure, the final censure and the termination. But the University has consistently overlooked the whole of what has been written. They have concentrated on small, almost incidental parts of what has been said and then used the Code of Conduct to pass judgement on those small parts, with the intention that the flow on effect of that judgement would impugn the whole of what Professor Ridd has written.
299. The Code of Conduct is subordinate to cl.14 of the EA. And what is said by Professor Ridd must always be looked at in its whole context. The University have continually “cherry-picked” portions of the writings of Professor Ridd and said “that is not the exercise of intellectual freedom”. But it is the whole of what is written that must be looked at rather than excerpts taken out of context.
…
302. That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the neverending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.
FINDINGS:
303. In light of the above, I make the following rulings:
a) The first finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
b) The censure given to Professor Ridd was unlawful as it contravened cl.14 of the EA.
c) The First Speech Direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
d) The Second Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
e) The First Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to give that direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
f) The Third Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant cl.14.
g) The Second Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights conferred on Professor Ridd by virtue of cl.14.
h) The Fourth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
i) The Fifth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.
j) The Sixth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.
k) The Seven Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
l) The Eighth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
m) The Third Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.
n) The Second Speech Direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
o) The Fourth Confidentiality Directions was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.
p) The no satire direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
q) The Fifth Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.
r) The Second Censure was unlawful because it contravened cl.14 of the EA.
s) The Ninth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
t) The Tenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
u) The Eleventh Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
v) The Twelfth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
w) The Thirteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights the Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
x) The Fourteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
y) The Fifteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because of breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
z) The Sixteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
aa) The Seventeenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it had no substance whatsoever, and even if there were the slightest scintilla of evidence, it was contrary to the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
bb) The termination of Professor Ridd’s employment was unlawful because it punished Professor Ridd for conduct that was protected by cl.14 of the EA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sweet victory to Prof. Ridd and all donors, Jennifer Marohasy, Anthony Watts. Our donations paid off big time. Feels better than winning in the slot machine! :-0
Congratulations Dr. Ridd. It is still astonishing to me that the scientific community has been so corrupted.
…and sheepish
Academia has always been very political, and Science has always resembled a Game of Thrones.
Bob Carter is dancing a jig in his grave. He’d be thrilled with this decision.
Yes!
A huge victory for freedom and science.
The process IS the punishment. The big government statist types know this. The University probably figures that it could bankrupt the poor man before justice could be served. Sadly, this is often what happens in such cases.
Thanks to all who provided the funding to stand up to this fascist nonsense.
A wonderful victory for intellectual freedom!
Excellent result. Please ensure you read the decision in full before making any detailed judgements or comments. You can find a pdf of the decision here (hopefully…I could directly access):
https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/ridd-v-james-cook-university-2019-fcca-997-.pdf
A taste of what you will find: (just a single page of the 79 page Decision)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.
2. Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.
3. The clause in question is cl.14 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement. It is headed “Intellectual Freedom”. It, and it alone, is the focus of this judgement.
At JC University, at least, there is now some academic protection from the official CliSci and Reefer mobs. Remember, though, they can still whip up the student mobs to personally attack freethinkers. The universities are then ‘forced’ to do what they wanted to do all along.
The case also underscores the power of cloud-funding. The individual normally hasn’t the resources to fight the deep pockets of government institutions and NGOs. Cloud-funding evens the playing field.
<bPlease ensure you read the decision in full before making any detailed judgements or comments.
Excellent advice for this post and many others. I think the decision speaks for itself and my only comment is to congratulate Dr. Ridd and hope other court cases can build on this.
Denigrating JCU seems too impersonal to me. This is really about the @sswipe academics who are willing to destroy another man’s reputation and career for the sake of their own little safe space to protect their corruption and incompetence. So if I may, let me say to all of those frauds and posers, “Eff you, and may you swiftly reap what you have sown”
New ABC story is up
James Cook University marine scientist Peter Ridd’s sacking ‘unlawful’, court rules
They choose to give the uni the last word
\\ In a statement, JCU Provost Professor Chris Cocklin disagreed with the judge and said the university was “considering its options”.
“[We] are also troubled by the fact that he fails to refer to any legal precedent or case law in Australia to support his interpretation of our enterprise agreement, or academic freedom in Australian employment law,” the statement said.
Provost Professor Cocklin maintained in the statement that Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his “scientific views”.
“Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced,” the statement said.
“We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd’s, nor any other employee’s, rights to academic freedom.
“What was in issue was how to he communicated about others, how he denigrated others, and how he breached confidentiality, which impacted not only on him, but on others.”//
==========
original Dec 2018 ABC radio story
Features a guy from Coral Reef dept saying
“He is basically what I think of as a climate change *denier* and a denier of the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is badly affected by poor water quality.
… He’s kept us on our toes to some extent over the years a little bit.”
Item ends with IAIN GORDON, DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR, JCU:
ABC presenter : “Have you created a martyr for the cause of climate change *denialism* ?
IAIN GORDON: Ah, the, the way in which the media is presenting at the moment is, in our view, untrue and misrepresenting the situation.
Peter always has been allowed to conduct himself in relation to what expectations of academic freedom are.
It is the fact that *he’s broken the Code of Conduct* .//
Color me a non lawyer, but seems to me publicly disagreeing with his colleagues’ findings was a breach of the code of conduct. How is that academic freedom?
Someone had a dummy spit!
Because there is a reason its called ‘critical review ‘ not pat each other on the back review , although to be fair within climate ‘science‘ it is ‘different ‘ .
Given the rebuke delivered with the judge’s ruling, shouldn’t JCU be a little more… ‘collegial’… when discussing Dr. Ridd?
Given that they think their lying, censoring, libeling and firing are collegial, while Dr. Ridd’s polite telling of the truth is not, the applicability of your advice depends on the definition you would like them to use.
You REALLY need to read the Decision….WUWT: Could you post the decision in full at the end of the original post?: I think this would be extremely helpful, and encourage more commenters to actually read the full decision. The would greatly add to the value of comments.
Another tidbit: (These are directly from the Judges Decision)
“76. What Professor Ridd did was point out anomalies in the methodology and conclusions made by Professor Hughes and others. He invited the journalist to ask questions of Professor Hughes and others so that debate could ensue and the public be able to discern the truth for themselves.
77. It would seem to me that this is exactly what a university should be encouraging and, relevantly, why cl.14.3 actually exists.”
The Judge’s findings are damning of JCU and should be read by everyone who values intellectual freedom.
And what was the response of JCU:
“In a statement, JCU Provost Professor Chris Cocklin disagreed with the judge and said the university was “considering its options”.
“[We] are also troubled by the fact that he fails to refer to any legal precedent or case law in Australia to support his interpretation of our enterprise agreement, or academic freedom in Australian employment law,” the statement said.
Provost Professor Cocklin maintained in the statement that Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his “scientific views”.
“Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced,” the statement said.
“We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd’s, nor any other employee’s, rights to academic freedom.”
Sadly, these guys will never learn.
full JCU statement as mentioned by the ABC
It ends by quoting a different judge from last year.
“Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced,” the statement said.”
I despise people who twist words like this.
Congratulations for your win Peter! I am proud to have helped in a small way. Thanks to WUWT for making the world aware of your case and the crowd funding possibility. Steve R in Canada
It is also federal election year in Australia, date May 18th. It’s going to be interesting.
Wonders never cease!
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sacking-of-james-cook-university-professor-was-unlawful-court-rules-20190416-p51etz.html
The SMH published it!
The Decision contains some of the most succinct criticisms related to the endemic problems with the AGW “tribe” that I have read….The observation that the “tribe” (and yes, I am being a bit hypocritical here…:)) for the most part has degenerated into ad hominem attacks against both individuals as well as AGW skeptics in general (ie Deniers) is, to me, the only real proof needed that much of what they are asserting is either pretty weak, or perhaps just nonsense.
“125. Again, whilst it is not part of the matters that I have to decide, it would seem that, rather than disciplining Professor Ridd, the better option would have been to provide evidence that would illustrate the errors in what he has said. If it had been shown that what Professor Ridd had been saying was demonstrably wrong, that would have been the greatest rebuke of all.”
Made my day! Some of the best money I ever spent.
Fabulous news! Congratulations Dr. Ridd and thanks Anthony for keeping us updated!
Reading the update, that is going to leave a mark and raise a few eye brows.
Technology will eventually break the back of Academia. The social sciences and the humanities with a 30 year leftist stranglehold are most vulnerable. Obscene fee inflation enabled by “automatic” tuition loans has reached criminal proportions. This corruption is making students actual indentured servants to the system, often times for decades…with no bankruptcy protections when real personal crises occur.
Remote learning programs are being explored where a student can view multiple lectures. from various real experts (e.g. an actual scientist or inventor or laureate), for a given classroom lecture hour. Remote Q and A is provided. G5 internet will provide for remote virtual reality based learning. Rebuild a transmission alongside a virtual master mechanic for instance.
There is talk about making the classroom work virtually free…charging only for midterm, final, and certification testing.
What I had for humanities and social science lectures back in the day were mostly fumbling poorly prepared short presentations by immature ego-bloated leftist professor-boot-licking grad students. And I had to walk a long way to and from the lecture room. I never had the need for nor did I ever see any personal tutor for help…It was not one bit less personal than watching a video lecture… and you can rewind a video. These “social propaganda” courses were great for my grade point average…else, mostly a waste of time and money.
Bring on technology and kill the beast that Academia has become…and save the economy a ton of wasted resources…AND PROVIDE BETTER EDUCATIONS TO BOOT.
I hope that Professor Ridd receives a smashing award of damages. In Canada due to a case call Wallace v. United Grain Growers, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld an award of equivalent to an extended period of compensation due to the bad faith conduct of the employer in the manner of the firing and actions subsequent to the firing which conduct breached the employer’s obligations of good faith and respect towards the employee.
This looks like such a case. Judge Vasta comments that counsel for JCU could not identify a ‘conflict of interest’ yet refused to concede that JCU’s finding in that regard was wrong. This is bad faith conduct.
From the headnote of Wallace v United Grain Growers: Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701
“Bad faith conduct in the manner of dismissal is another factor that is properly compensated for by an addition to the notice period. The contract of employment has many characteristics that set it apart from the ordinary commercial contract. Individual employees on the whole lack both the bargaining power and the information necessary to achieve more favourable contract provisions than those offered by the employer, particularly with regard to tenure. This power imbalance is not limited to the employment contract itself, but informs virtually all facets of the employment relationship. The point at which the employment relationship ruptures is the time when the employee is most vulnerable and hence most in need of protection. In recognition of this need, the law ought to encourage conduct that minimizes the damage and dislocation (both economic and personal) that result from dismissal. To ensure that employees receive adequate protection, employers ought to be held to an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal, breach of which will be compensated for by adding to the length of the notice period. While the obligation of good faith and fair dealing is incapable of precise definition, at a minimum in the course of dismissal employers ought to be candid, reasonable, honest and forthright with their employees and should refrain from engaging in conduct that is unfair or is in bad faith by being, for example, untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive.”
“While a dismissed employee is not entitled to compensation for injuries flowing from the fact of the dismissal itself, where an employee can establish that an employer engaged in bad faith conduct or unfair dealing in the course of dismissal, injuries such as humiliation, embarrassment and damage to one’s sense of self‑worth and self‑esteem might all be worthy of compensation depending upon the circumstances of the case. Often the intangible injuries caused by bad faith conduct or unfair dealing on dismissal will lead to difficulties in finding alternative employment, a tangible loss which the Court of Appeal rightly recognized as warranting an addition to the notice period. However, the intangible injuries are sufficient to merit compensation in and of themselves. Bad faith conduct which affects employment prospects may be worthy of considerably more compensation than that which does not, but in both cases damage has resulted that should be compensable. The trial judge documented several examples of bad faith conduct on the part of the respondent. While the award of the equivalent of 24 months’ salary in lieu of notice is at the high end of the scale, it is not unreasonable when all the relevant factors are taken into account and there is accordingly no reason to interfere.”
Whether Professor Ridd *wants* to take up re-employment with such a bunch of idiots, is yet to be known. Whether he is entitled to damages in lieu of being re-employed is another legal question. But given the circumstance that the employer acted throughout in bad faith, is ample ground for a request that his costs, his legal fees, be paid by JCU at a full solicitor and his own client basis (with a premium for overwhelming success). Unfortunately, JCU has lots of cash, and may attempt to spin this out. However, obtaining leave to appeal under this set of facts will be extremely hard, as JCU must show that the Judge committed an error in law (as distinct to an unwarranted ‘impossible’ misapprehension of fact). His conclusions throughout show that JCU was intentionally misconstruing the terms of the EA so as to cause damage (i.e. not being able to discuss things with his wife).
This still has to play out. The go-fund-me may be needed again.
In the meantime, congratulations to Peters’ legal team: Mr S. J Wood QC assisted by B. Jellis and
B. Kidston and Mahoneys, solicitors.
“236. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.”
Because it was made up!
Here is JCU’s press release on the matter. They fall back on a hearing that upheld JCU’s dismissal of Ridd.
https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2019/april/response-to-federal-circuit-court-judgement
The other side to the reinstatement hearing is at https://jennifermarohasy.com/2018/06/can-universities-lawfully-bully-academics-silence/
Dr. Ridd, I didn’t contribute to your fund however, I am very glad others did and the result is very encouraging.
Whatever the final settlement in his favor, he probably will never get his career back as it was before. University admins have plenty of other ways of making life unpleasant for recalcitrant staff, and what other University will offer him employment?
Very glad to hear of this substantial win (slam dunk) for Dr. Peter Ridd and academic freedom. Hopefully this will send a shiver down the spine of all academia everywhere around the world that academic freedom in science is paramount without the fear of being fired.