Peter Ridd’s appeal hearing is underway in the Federal Court. Barristers Stuart Wood QC and Brett Walker QC are appearing via video link. #PeterRidd

Walker raising Queensland’s Public Sector Ethics Act, claiming that trial judge failed to take it into account. My recollection is that this was not raised by JCU’s legal team in the original hearing. #PeterRidd

Yep - Stuart Wood QC points out that ‘none of this was raised’ at the original hearing. #PeterRidd

Wood: ‘There was no attempt to raise any of these matters, nor to prove what my learned friend is suggested.’ #PeterRidd

Walker insists that he ‘would never’ use a state act to override an enterprise agreement made under a federal act. #PeterRidd

Walker pressing on, suggesting that QLD Public Sector Ethics Act can applied to #PeterRidd when he was employed by JCU. ‘Seems relevant to understanding of the code.’

Seems like a long bow and besides which, the question is whether the code of conduct trumps the EBA.

Aaaand we’ve had the first reminder that those not speaking should be on mute. Even in the Federal Court, the annoying features of video conferencing persist. #PeterRidd

Walker still pursuing ethics argument, pointing out that sections of the EBA impose obligations of the university to maintain ‘highest standards of ethical conduct’.

But what did #PeterRidd do that was unethical? Raising concerns about bad science?

Walker concedes that nothing in the JCU staff code of conduct cannot detract from the academic freedom right in the EBA. Issue is the interpretation of the academic freedom right itself, and that nothing in the code actually does detract from the EBA. #PeterRidd

After a short adjournment, discussion continues on the role of the code of conduct. On the one hand, cl 14.1 says that academic freedom right is to be upheld by JCU ‘in accordance with Code of Conduct’. On the other, cl 13.3 says Code ‘not intended to detract’ from ac freedom cl.

After a long discussion of various elements of the code of conduct - such as ‘collegiality’ and ‘respect for the reputations of others’, the court has adjourned until 2:15. #PeterRidd

Court has resumed. Bret Walker continuing his arguments.

Discussion now to the ‘confidentiality directions’ that Peter was found, by JCU, to have breached. At the Fed Circ Court hearing last year, the trial judge said that these gag orders - including a direction that Peter couldn’t even talk to his own wife - were ‘reprehensible’.

Key issue here is whether JCU could validly invoke conf clauses to prevent Peter from discussing the disciplinary proceedings against him. This goes to whether JCU was in its rights to create a ‘star chamber’ dynamic in which JCU could keep everything behind closed doors.

Bret Walker has concluded his argument. Stuart Wood QC now making the case for Peter.

Wood: ‘My learned friend has referred to “so-called” rights [to academic freedom]. These are not “so-called” rights - They are rights.” #PeterRidd

Wood: ‘It is significant that the [academic freedom] right, which is found in the culture and mores of a university, has been considered important enough to write into the EBA.’ #PeterRidd

Stuart Wood making the point that there is no way to point out the serious scientific shortcomings with JCU reef science - as Peter did - without falling foul of requirements like ‘collegiality’. It is a ‘hard truth’. #PeterRidd