This update came today from Dr. Peter Ridd:
The “penalties” hearing went well, and Barrister Ben Kidston did a brilliant job in the pilot’s seat.
I should let you all know that we are no longer seeking reinstatement because JCU’s response since the decision indicates that if I went back, I would have a very troubled existence that would also threaten all my colleagues in the Physics Department.
But the big news is that JCU stated firmly that they will appeal. This is a frightening prospect that will be horribly expensive both financially and emotionally, but at least we know for sure. I have little doubt that we will win. JCU has just not faced reality.
JCU have three weeks after the Judge hands down his “penalty” decision to file the appeal documents. We will hold off reopening the funding appeal until then. I expect it will be late August. You have already done your bit and I have no doubt that many others will step up to the plate and join us. This matter is now very well known.
On a more amusing note, the Vice Chancellor and the Provost (Chris Cocklin) might be in big trouble for an email and public statement they made within hours of the decision being made public in April. To quote The Australian newspaper
“Justice Vasta said the statement attributed to Chris Cocklin was “almost contemptuous” and could be referred to the Federal Circuit Court ¬Marshal”
Charlie Peel,writing in The Australian says:
James Cook University risks contempt rap for response to verdict
Contempt? Well, that fits. They haven’t a clue how contemptuous they appear.
In other news, the IPA did some digging, here are some excerpts from the press release, bold mine:
Gideon Rozner: The details of a freedom of information request lodged by the Institute of Public Affairs with James Cook University and released today reveal the University has already spent at least $630,000 on legal fees in the Dr Peter Ridd case.
“The very fact that an Australian university is willing to force the weight of an entire administration backed by taxpayer funds to stifle an academic’s freedom of speech sends a massive chilling effect to any academic engaging in public debate in Australia,” said IPA Director of Policy, Gideon Rozner.
“James Cook University’s shameful actions prove without doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian Universities.
“It is staggering to think that after the Federal Circuit Court ruled on every point in Dr Ridd’s favour, JCU is contemplating an appeal.
“Australian universities receive billions of dollars in taxpayer funding for the purpose of free intellectual inquiry. Now JCU wants to go to a higher court to prove it can shut down the freedom of speech on academic issue by one of its professors. It is outrageous. Taxpayers fund JCU to do education and research, not engage in vexatious litigation against its own staff.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Keep on fighting and keep us informed, sure you will get the funding needed.
I am still not convinced the will be given leave to appeal, it will be interesting to see what argument they try.
In the US you have an automatic right to appeal to the lowest appellate court. After that, an appeal has to be granted by the higher appellate court, which is usually a state Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court.
I should let you all know that we are no longer seeking reinstatement …
While I understand the decision not to return to JCU completely, I think this is the win the university was looking for. They got what they wanted, whether they appeal or not. It’s a sad commentary on the state of science that academia can “get its way” using these kinds of tactics.
Just met Peter at Brisbane Airport. Great to meet him in person and wish him good luck.
Seek reinstatement ……then resign the following day.
No, that would lose him the compensation for unfair dismissal.
^^^ That.
In the face of the 28 illegal actions for which JCU have been found guilty, it seems unlikely an appeal would ultimately be successful. It appears more likely to be just a use of the oft practiced legal tactic of using escalating legal costs and years of delays to force a less wealthy opponent to give up and agree to a much-reduced settlement.
However, as of 1 July 2019 new legislation that provides enhanced protection for whistle-blowers has come into effect. It includes easier access to compensation and remedies if they suffer detriment following their disclosure.
It would now appear that the longer JCU drags out settlement with Dr. Ridd the greater the risk of escalating the detriment. Clearly it should be the duty of the JCU Council to intervene and put a stop to this farce.
The very nature of the 28 illegal actions of JCU indicates that these things did not just happen as a result of some impersonal corporate procedure. Personal decision making and responsibility must have been repeatedly involved. In view of the matters of important public interest with respect to both the Great Barrier Reef as well as academic research more generally, the personal detriment of Professor Ridd and his family and the interest of justice itself, a proper investigation of accountability is fully warranted.
The era of a free pass for white-collar crime and malfeasance behind a cloak of corporate anonymity is ending and universities are overdue a closer look.
28 illegal actions? I thought it was only 17?
The court decision found that all the 17 findings, 8 directions, 2 censures, and final employment termination made by JCU against Professor Ridd were illegal.
Thank you for that. It’s quite a shame that Australians can’t get a true account of this event *IN* Australia and in Australian media. We have to go elsewhere for the truth.
To me, this reeks of a “superiority complex” that the JCU believed they were above the law, or were just ignorant of the law. I am glad to see some correction happening. I wonder if the Federal/State Govn’t were ALP would the result be different?
‘It would now appear that the longer JCU drags out settlement with Dr. Ridd the greater the risk of escalating the detriment.’
Yes,of course.
As a long term Australian Taxpayer,unwilling to pay more for this farce, IMHO its time that JCU had some skin in the game.
The next Commonwealth Grants round must be reduced by any costs involved in this litigation.
This site needs to gear up for another funding appeal.
For those in NSW with reasonable memories……….
‘I feel another racing greyhound moment coming on’.
This sort of thing has been going on in Australian universities for some time. No surprise to me.
Sadly wholey predictable, it’s ‘face’ the fear losing most, and having Peter back on campus would have been a major loss of that. While they may feel there is more to be lost in ‘cilmate doom’ funding than any payments to Peter.
Peter, just tell us when and where to send the money. These SNIP are not going to win. Too much is at stake.
This may turn into a watershed case.
This case illustrates the danger of open ended unlimited state funded support, available to bureaucracy, i.e. the JCU, versus the common man, represented by Peter Ridd.
The bureaucrats can continue their contemptuous actions against both the man and the courts, safe in the knowledge, they as bureaucrats will never have to answer personally, for their state funded activities. It is no matter to the JCU individuals extending this case duration, how lacking in balance or correctness they might be.
This privilege, enjoyed by state funded persons to operate, safe in the knowledge they will never be held responsible, or suffer any personal risk for their misdemeanours, must change.
It is not beholden on the the tax payers, nor is it their responsibility, to underwrite the folly and cost of public sector workers (JCU administrators) misdeeds/actions, no matter what they do.
I am happy to support Peter’s crowd funding request, should that day dawn.
I also will be willing to put my hand in my pocket.But we must NOT let this just slide away.These”BureaucRATS”must be held to account for their actions.They MUST be shown that there are consequences for what they do.
When you’re digging a hole like the JCU are doing all you can see is the hole and nothing else and you will go to silly lengths to get out of it.
They thought they were digging a grave for Peter but it rather looks the other way around and they could be the ones underground by the end of this a bit like the “bowler hat” chap in this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yShvgXZQBTs
Will be ready and waiting for the reopening of the gofundme to help put them in their place.
James Bull
it would be instructive to know what the university said that was considered close to contempt.
unfortunately, it’s paywallled…
I have a feeling that it will become an important reference case down the track. Uni admins around the world will be carefully following it. I did not fund it last time as I like to clearly understand what is being argued.
I will put something in for the appeal as the outcome alone is worth it. Besides, I don’t like bullies.
Its all so silly when there could well have been a resolution early in the stage through talks around a table. Academics are seldom wise.
M
It is all very well announcing how much JCU have spent on the case buy this it is not their money, it is the taxpayer’s. The whole image of the University stinks since Prof.Robert Carter’s departure. The Government should act on this abuse of taxpayer’s money.
When you get to the bottom line the problem is how government funding is administered and applied. Obviously they have tax payer money to burn.
if jcu has a law dept I wonder how theyre seeing this
fine example isnt it?
your own incompetent management refutes legal results
bet their homework if they have law students? gets interesting this yr or next
Re. Michael Hart of July 20, re. issuing of “”Qualifications” .
In the final days of the Australian Administration of Papua New Guinea, 1973, it was policy to never fail a PNG perron at school. All were given a pass but they were marked as A to F.
The poor devils would turn up at the Police Station to join the Police Force, and we had to explain to them that a pass of less then say B was worthless. It was not a job I enjoyed doing.
MJE VK5ELL
Peter Ridd is fighting a battle for all of us in western civilisation . He may need all the support we can give if JCU continues with its legal options . They will want to drive him into the dust ,never to be seen or heard of again.
Even now a search for Peter Ridd on the ABC news website only mentions he won unfair dismissal but means nothing in terms of his actual studies of the GBR . If Prof. Ridd wins this case it will not be a win for climate realists but if he loses it will certainly be a win for climate scam artists and their intelligent sheep .
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/190719-Media-release-IPA-James-Cook-University-Must-Give-Up-Its-Appeal-In-The-Ridd-Free-Speech-Case.pdf
In this link (IPA Media Release) there is a table (excluding GST) showing that 495K of the 630K total was spent on Clayton Utz Professional fees. Splashing a listing around explaining these fees might shed light on the system. I was in Australia quite a few years ago and was told the same thing was going on there as was in the US. It was a shame because the research coming out of there that I knew about seemed better than the US. The situation developed because the honest, quiet types tolerated it too long. Corrupt administrators know that, but they don’t have good judgement anyway.
JCU administrative elitists live in their own distorted alternate universe, from how I see this turning out.
Close down JCU. Dismiss the alter-verse elitist administrators. Start an employment search for new administrators. Then re-open the place in THIS universe, with the new administrators at the helm. Re-hire Peter Ridd, and live happily ever after. [Yeah, like that would ever happen — what universe am I living in?]
Geologist Bob Carter was a distinguished professor merciless subjected to the punishment of Big Climate enforcers. A third of a century at James Cook University ended with them taking away his office, his unpaid adjunct professorship, and eventually his email address and even his library card. Sadly, Peter Ridd is merely the next “cab off the rank” … and these cowardly bullies must be stopped. We can start by naming names, ad nauseum.
Seems to be par for the course at Australian universities.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/silencing-climate-change-dissenters/
https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/
Unfortunately, many of Justice Salvatore Vasta’s judgements have been overturned on appeal and we should be wary that this one may end the same way.
They appear to be in the contentious area of family law.
This judgement is in a different area, the interpretation of contract and the obligation of an employer.
JCU could well be thinking they have a chance in appeal, but for reasons including upholding the good name of the University and its body of work.They also bear no financial costs, so there is no disincentive there to appeal.
If they lose again then certain persons who made the relevant decisions may get a gold watch, generous super and payout then quietly slip away, for family reasons.
In which case the good name of the University will no longer be their problem, but they can argue that they did what was possible and it had to be done.
So decisions for the Ridd team have to be made as the JCU responds, it calls the shots.
Shooting the messenger, the Judge, may not cut it though.
The decision was carefully argued and walled against successful appeal, in my non legal opinion.
Similar minds, on appeal, may well concur.
Amazing how much money JCU is spending fighting this. Always easy for public servants to spend other people’s money for political purposes. I and another resident in my fair town had to sue our city to secure reimbursement of parking mitigation fees collected by the city to construct parking at the beach. The law was reasonably clear that the money needed to be spent within five years for the purpose intended. The city held the money for twenty-five years and dipped into the till for unauthorized uses. We prevailed in court and they appealed. We won at the appellate level. It was actually funny watching the City Attorney trying to defend the city’s action before the judges. Of course they appealed to the State Supreme Court which refused to hear the case. So the city wound up reimbursing about $11 million less contingent legal costs to over 6,000 homeowners.