Summary of Allegations with brief explanation: Note some of these allegations have multiple sup-allegations

Allegation 1

JCU was concerned about my communication with The Australian newspaper. JCU has demanded that Ridd give them all his correspondence with The Australian. Ridd has refused to do this.

Allegation 2

This allegation relates to JCU insisting that all the 2016 and 2017 disciplinary proceedings against Ridd should remain secret, i.e. JCU insists that Ridd is not allowed to discuss their disciplinary action against him. This directive is the subject of legal contention. It is also claimed that Ridd denigrated a senior professor and leader of a GBR research organsation. This related to some famous photographs of Stone Island Reef that have been used by many organisations that supposedly show the total loss of coral from the reef. When Ridd and his team checked these photographs, they found excellent coral casting doubt on the quality assurance mechanisms being used by these organisation.

Allegation 3

This contains many allegations that Ridd did not keep the details of the disciplinary process against him secret (confidential). It includes examples of where he spoke to senior colleagues, newspapers, and bloggers. As mentioned above the secrecy directive is under legal contention. One important question is “why is JCU so keen for Ridd not to speak about what they did to him”.

Allegations 4:

JCU claim that Ridd is wrong to assert that JCU is not allowing him to express his scientific opinions, and deny that they have curtailed RIdd's academic freedom despite censuring him for his comments that are clearly within his area of expertise viz GBR science and Quality Assurance problems in science in general.

It is possible that JCU does not understand that Ridd's expertise is not just scientific aspects of the GBR,. He has published articles on the quality assurance problems in science in general and for the GBR in particular. The original comment, to which JCU objected, pointed out that if organisations use peer review as their main QA mechanism, then their work could not be viewed as reliable or trustworthy.

Allegation 5JCU claim that some of Ridd’s comment incorrectly imply that he was denied procedural fairness. These include Ridd’s objections to the trawling of his emails to find ammunition for misconduct allegations and how such activity engenders an atmosphere of fear at a university where free thought and debate should be central.

In addition, JCU objected to Ridd saying the words "You should look at me as a poisonous fruit" and "[the University] could eat me…but it will hurt; I will make sure it hurt". He said these words at the initial, and very frightening, serious misconduct interview in August 2017 when Ridd was handed by the superior and HR representative the first set of allegations. At this interview it was made clear that there was an imminent possibility of dismissal and Ridd made it clear that he was going to fight the allegations in any way he could, as is his legal right. JCU claims that the "language used is threatening, insubordinate, disrespectful". Ridd had just been told he is going into a procedure where JCU is the judge , jury and probable/possible executioner, and JCU claim it was Ridd who was threatening because he told them he is going to fight back.

Allegation 6

JCU accused Ridd that he "trivialised, satirised or parodied" the disciplinary process by sending a copy of a newspaper article about the case to an old friend with the subject line "for your amusement". JCU particularly objected to the use of the word "amusement". Naughty word apparently, but the JCU thought-police got it totally wrong. Ridd sees nothing amusing about what is happening to him. The strain and pressure is constant and crushing. He did however think that his friend might find it amusing that he was fighting yet another battle.

Allegation 7

JCU claim that Ridd incorrectly states that JCU did not allow him to talk to his wife about the disciplinary procedure. It is certainly true that, after a couple of months, JCU finally relented and allowed Ridd to talk to his wife. But initially JCU did not give permission to talk to his wife when he wrote to them asking for that permission. Then shortly after Ridd asked for permission, JCU made two allegations of serious misconduct about emailing his wife information relating to the case. JCU should apologise rather than claim they are the aggrieved party.

Allegation 8

(a) JCU claim that Ridd has been disrespectful to a superior.

In an email he used the salutation “ Bruce and Noreen and Whoever” (Bruce and Noreen are not the real names)

JCU object to the term “whoever” and claim “ the email salutation is disrespectful. The language used in the email is intimidating, disrespectful and divisive and directed not only to the Head of Physical Sciences and Dean but also the University management, in the manner of addressing it to "whoever" (sic).”

Apart from seeming incredibly trivial, JCU did not realise that “whoever” referred to the third person in all of Ridd’s emails – the person in monitoring his emails and forwarding them to JCU legal people.

(b) In the email to the superior, Ridd was objecting to being given instructions about what he could say and could not say at an invited public lecture. The superior had asked that he give a copy of his proposed presentation to him and then asked that some of the slides be removed. Ridd had been using some of these slides for years and was upset and offended that he was being instructed to remove the material from his presentation. In the email he was also trying to get a meeting with the

college academic management to find a way forward. JCU objected to the words "I think you should consider your actions in all this and which side you want to be remembered as being part of. So far it does not look encouraging but I live in hope" JCU also claim that Ridd stating that the superior's original email is "offensive" and does "not live up to public expectations of decent behaviour" were “threatening and disrespectful, particularly when used in discussions with your supervisor”.

Allegation 9

JCU objected to the help that Ridd received from the Institute of public affairs and claimed. JCU claim that Ridd had a Conflict of interest with the IPA because the IPA paid for some of his initial legal costs and they also paid for an air ticket and accommodation to be a special speaker at a couple of public meetings. Paying for an invited speakers travel costs is standard practice in academia. In addition Ridd has a right to accept assistance to protect himself from whoever he wishes.

Table 1. Page numbers for each of the 9 main allegation categories for the allegation document, the attachment document and the response by Ridd’s lawyers.

Allegation Number Allegation Document1

Page numberAttachment document2

Page number

Ridd’s Lawyer Response3

Page number1 4 To be added2 5 - 73 6, 74 7 - 95 9 - 116 11 287 118 11 – 12 36, 379 12- 13

1 File a 2018-04-13 Letter to Professor Ridd 13 April 2018_Redacted 2 File 2018-02-08 - Allegations of Serious Misconduct - Attachments_Redacted 3 File 2018-02-22 Letter to CU - response to third allegations (1)_Redacted