Marine physicist Peter Ridd has his day in High Court against James Cook University

Physicist Peter Ridd – who has studied the reef since 1984 and believes it not endangered – says his case will put academic freedom on the line.

Peter Ridd ahead of his High Court appeal in Canberra. Picture: Jamila Toderas/The Australian

Marine physicist Peter Ridd has finally had his day in the nation’s High Court against his old employer, James Cook University, as his counsel argues the sacked professor could not have taken on orthodox wisdom on the Great Barrier Reef in a “polite and courteous way.”

High Court chief justice Susan Kiefel and the bench heard on Wednesday that Dr Ridd’s sacking from James Cook over his clashes with colleagues on the state of the reef was“unlawful” as it contravened free speech clauses in his enterprise agreement.

But James Cook University – represented by star barrister Brett Walker – said there was limits to how Dr Ridd was allowed to conduct himself and the rights of his colleagues also had to be protected.

Dr Ridd entered the High Court in Canberra on Wednesday flanked by Queensland crossbench MP Bob Katter, Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam, and dozens of supporters.

The physicist – who has studied the reef since 1984 and believes it not endangered – said outside the court that his case would put academic freedom on the line.

“If we win or lose, it will have significant consequences. If we win, it will be good for freedom of speech, robust debate, free up the university system,” he told The Australian.

“If we lose it will essentially tell Australia that academic freedom is not an important thing.”

Dr Ridd’s barrister, Stuart Wood QC, told the court that Dr Ridd’s enterprise agreement with James Cook overrode its staff code of conduct on matters of free speech.

“Sometimes an academic has to say something is wrong and give the reasons why it is wrong,” he told the court.

“The reasons it’s wrong may be that the research is fraudulent, the research has a funding bias, that the researcher might have been negligent.

“As an operation of the ideas clashing, the truth emerges … but reputations are damaged as one side is proved to be wrong.

“That can’t be done in a respectful and courteous way.”

A 2019 court decision found Dr Ridd had been unfairly dismissed, awarding him $1.2m in compensation.

But the university last July won an appeal at the Federal Circuit Court, which found the Townsville-based university had not acted unlawfully when it sacked its employee of 30 years for breaching its code of conduct.

James Cook University employed star barrister Brett Walker – who has recently represented cabinet minister Christian Porter and Catholic cardinal George Pell – to argue against the appeal on Wednesday.

Mr Walker told the court that the code of conduct did protect free speech, but ensured it occurred in a way that did not vilify colleagues.

“One person’s chilling effect is another person’s appropriate restraint,” he told the court.

“There is not a right to harassment, vilification, bullying, or vilification … it’s particularly easy to see how vehement statements on corrupt or incompetent research of a colleague might be regarded as vilification.

“There are limits in the exercise of intellectual freedom.”

Dr Ridd had previously told Sky News that research bodies like the Australian Institute of Marine Science could “no longer be trusted” and privately accused colleagues of “doom science about the Great Barrier Reef”.

The High Court retired to consider its verdict and has yet to set a date for its judgement.