James Cook University wins appeal over $1.2m Peter Ridd judgment

In a ‘devastating blow’ to free speech, former James Cook University professor Peter Ridd’s unlawful dismissal judgment has been set aside.

James Cook University has won its appeal against former professor Peter Ridd. Picture: Kym Smith

James Cook University has won a bid to overturn a court decision last year awarding $1.2m to outspoken professor Peter Ridd over his sacking for criticising climate science and fellow academics at the Townsville-based institution.

The full bench of the Federal Circuit Court on Wednesday found JCU was within its rights to sack Professor Ridd for “serious misconduct” in 2018 after he publicly disparaged his colleagues and claimed the university’s Great Barrier Reef global warming science was misleading and sensationalist.

Defending his actions, the marine physicist said it was within his right to intellectual freedom but the full court ruled that liberty was constrained by the behavioural standards of the university’s code of conduct.

Professor Ridd confirmed to The Australian on Wednesday that he had sought legal advice about challenging the verdict in the High Court.

The university stalwart was given an initial warning in April 2016 after he emailed a journalist and criticised his colleague Professor Terry Hughes, the head of JCU’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, for using “misleading” images portraying “broad scale decline” in the health of the Great Barrier Reef.

The university found he had breached the code of conduct because he had not acted collegiately.

He was censured again in November 2017 after making similar claims on Sky News about the lack of quality assurance processes on coral reef science and saying the university’s science was untrustworthy.

After a further conduct violations, and breaching a confidentiality direction, he was sacked in April 2018.

Professor Ridd challenged the dismissal in the Federal Circuit Court and Judge Salvatore Vasta last year found in favour of Professor Ridd, ordering the university to pay $1.2m in compensation and penalties.

That ruling was overturned on Wednesday in the decision by judges Sarah Derrington, John Griffiths and Darryl Rangiah. Justice Rangiah agreed with the appeal but said the matter tried again.

During an appeal hearing in May, JCU claimed Professor Ridd violated the university’s code of conduct which required staff to act in a collegiate and respectful manner.

Professor Ridd’s legal team argued that his right to criticise the university and his colleagues was protected by intellectual freedom.

The appeal centred on whether the university’s enterprise agreement gave Professor Ridd the “untrammelled right” to express his professional opinions, unconstrained by the behavioural standards of the code of conduct.

The court found that it did not and that the university’s dismissal of the professor did not breach the Fair Work Act.

Justice Derrington and Justice Griffiths said the right to exercise intellectual freedom was “necessarily constrained” by the duty to prevent harassment, bullying and vilification of other staff.

The court found that it was within the university’s right to discipline Dr Ridd for breaching confidentiality directions.

In a statement on Wednesday night, Professor Ridd criticised the government for allowing universities to “stifle debate”.

“Fundamental concepts such as academic freedom of speech should not be decided by a few words in a work contract of a malignant university,” he said.

“Higher protection is necessary.”

Policy Director Gideon Rozner from the Institute of Public Affairs, which funded some of Dr Ridd’s legal challenge, said the judgment was a “devastating blow” against freedom of speech.

The court found that Dr Ridd had gone beyond expressing his intellectual views in criticising JCU and his colleagues and that he had been disrespectful.

“It is also clear that some of the elements of Professor Ridd’s conduct are unable to be characterised as an exercise of intellectual freedom … being no more than expressions of personal opinion and frustration and general criticism of JCU or the university sector more broadly,” the judgment said.

“Professor Ridd’s conduct subsequent to the Final Censure, and on which his termination was grounded, had nothing to do with the exercise of intellectual freedom …”

Justice Derrington and Justice Griffiths said some of the university’s actions in disciplining Professor Ridd – including searching his emails and ordering him not to discuss the matters with his wife – “did not reflect the highest standards of ethical conduct”.