Dear Foxy,

I think Professor Chris Cocklin might be drawing a long bow to say they never impinged on his academic freedom.

By evoking a confidentiality clause that is normally there to protect the individual during disciplinary actions taken against them to attempt to silence Ridd from speaking about the reasons for the proceedings against him was fraught.

Also the provisions of the EBA on Academic Freedom include this;

"All staff have the right to express unpopular or controversial views. However, this comes with a responsibility to respect the rights of others and they do not have the right to harass, vilify, bully or intimidate those who disagree with their views."

What JCU failed to do, in the judge's opinion, was to illustrate that Ridd harassed, vilified, bullied or intimidated any other staff. I agree with that assessment based on his judgement. This will probably the basis of any appeal though.

Dear Steele,

I guess it will be up to the university to prove
their case if they decide to appeal. Dr Ridd
did give a series of interviews to the media
where he was not very diplomatic in what he
said. He did make it personal regarding both
his colleagues and the university. However, it's
now all up to the university and what it decides to do.

I shall be surprised if despite everything the man
gets re-instated.

This is the judgment handed down by the Court:
1) The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.

(2) The issue of the making of declarations and penalty are adjourned to a date to be fixed.
The matter will only come before the Court for making of orders for reinstatement of Professor Ridd, and orders, including any penalty against the university. There will be no reconsideration of the case, Foxy, unless, the university appeals. There is a possibility of action against the university if its informal response is viewed as abuse of process.

Dear Leo,

I hope the university appeals.

I nominate Peter Ridd as Australian of the year.

Not Fraser Anning?