Mr Mathew Parker v The Chief Constable of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary — 2024

The tribunal found that the Respondent knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant had ASD by the end of July 2018, ADHD by July 2020, and PTSD by February 2020. It also accepted that the Respondent knew the Claimant had depression and anxiety at all material times. In reaching the ASD finding, the tribunal relied on the 29 May 2018 meeting with DI Gareth Jones, where communication difficulties were discussed, a referral to occupational health was made, and no further enquiries were pursued after the Respondent had been put on notice of a possible long-term impairment.

On the two promotion-related section 15 allegations, the tribunal accepted legitimate aims of an effective promotion application process, effective management and supervision of officers, and effective policing, but rejected the sickness-absence/support aim as relevant to those allegations. It held that the decision not to provide temporary promotion to Detective Inspector in June 2021 was proportionate because the vacancies were opened first to officers already holding the substantive rank, the Claimant was a Detective Sergeant, and the Respondent was entitled to follow its usual recruitment structure rather than create an acting-up exception.

The tribunal also held that the failure to inform the Claimant of promotion opportunities during the July-August 2021 period was proportionate. It found that he was absent because of an ordinary DIY injury rather than disability-related leave, that the Respondent did not have a practice of individually alerting absent officers to such vacancies, and that he was not eligible for either role in any event. Both section 15 claims were dismissed.

For the remaining issues, the tribunal made stage-one findings that the Respondent operated the disputed PCPs relating to scenario-based interviews said to create pressure, double or unclear interview questions, arranging some meetings after 2pm, not allowing psychiatric assistance dogs in the workplace, and appointing an officer senior to the complainant to investigate a grievance. Those issues, including proportionality and any remaining discrimination findings, were left for the later hearing. The tribunal also made a preparation order of £130.67 in favour of the Claimant because of late disclosure of relevant policy documents.