P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: 2205459/2012
| Judgment Date | 06 March 2020 |
| Citation | 2205459/2012 |
| Published date | 26 March 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number: 2205459/2012
1
Reserved Judgment
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant and Respondent
P Commissioner of Police
of the Metropolis
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
SITTING AT: London Central ON: 10-13 February 2020
BEFORE: Employment Judge A M Snelson MEMBERS: Ms G Gillman
Ms O Stennett
On hearing Mr E Kemp, counsel, on behalf of the Claimant and Mr J Crozier,
counsel, on behalf of the Respondents, the Tribunal unanimously adjudges that:
(1) The Claimant’s complaints of discrimination arising from disability, failure to
make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment are not
well-founded.
(2) Accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1 The Claimant, a British woman of Pakistani descent now 38 years of age,
joined the Cambridgeshire Police as a trainee Constable in 2005 and transferred to
the Metropolitan Police in 2008. She was confirmed as a Detective Constable in
July 2011. Her period of service as a police officer ended with her dismissal on 12
November 2012 on the stated ground of gross misconduct.
2 It is material to record that, in 2002, at the age of 20, the Claimant was
taken to Pakistan and compelled to marry a man not known to her and many years
her senior. She never accepted the arrangement and, the following year, was able,
with the assistance of the British authorities, to leave and return to the UK. On 20
Case Number: 2205459/2012
2
September 2010 following a four-day trial in the High Court, Baron J declared the
marriage invalid for want of consent.
1
3 The failure of the marriage and the High Court action were a source of
considerable resentment on the part of members of the Claimant’s family over a
protracted period. On 10 April 2010 she was attacked in her home by two Asian
men and warned to discontinue the litigation. She sustained significant injuries.
The culprits were never identified. The Claimant has always believed that her
family was behind the attack. Baron J felt unable so to find, but accepted that
extreme pressure had been applied to her to withdraw the case.
4 The Claimant was diagnosed with PTSD in September 2010. The
Respondent accepts that, from diagnosis until her dismissal from the force, she
was disabled by that condition.
5 On 12 September 2011, whilst off duty, the Claimant went in the company of
other off-duty police officers to a nightclub, where she misappropriated the property
of two other people and was required to leave by members of the nightclub staff.
6 The Claimant was arrested on suspicion of theft on 11 November 2011.
Soon afterwards it was decided that no criminal proceedings would be brought. A
disciplinary investigation followed, which culminated in her dismissal.
7 By her claim form presented on 3 December 2012, the Claimant, then acting
in person, brought complaints of disability discrimination which were not altogether
clear.
8 In the response form the Respondent raised a number of challenges to the
Claimant’s case, including the averment that the Tribunal was without jurisdiction
because the disciplinary hearing at which she was dismissed was a judicial
proceeding to which an absolute immunity attached.
9 In March 2013 the Claimant’s case was helpfully clarified by means of
further particulars supplied by solicitors whom she had instructed, which specified
claims of discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable
adjustments and disability-related harassment.
10 The merits then took a back seat. The extraordinary delay in bringing this
dispute to a final hearing is explained by the fact that the jurisdictional issue was
litigated through four levels of adjudication, starting with the Employment Tribunal
and ending with the Claimant’s successful appeal to the Supreme Court.
2
11 In January 2019, pursuant to a direction of the Tribunal, the Respondent
delivered fresh, comprehensive grounds of resistance, which enabled the parties to
agree a list of issues. We attach that list as an appendix to these reasons.
1
See Re P (Forced Marriage) [2011] 1 FLR 2060. The remedy of a declaration of nullity being
unavailable, the Court granted the declaration pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction. The judge found
that the Claimant’s evidence had been “embellished” but accepted the central assertion that she
had not freely consented to be married.
2
See P v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 65.
To continue reading
Request your trial