Ms Wonta Ansah-Twum, counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a designated detention officer, was dismissed on 14 May 2018 for gross misconduct said to have occurred on 19 November 2016 and 4 December 2016. At the disciplinary hearing he formally admitted allegations 1 to 5, disputed allegation 6 only on dishonesty, and denied allegation 7. The tribunal found that the respondent had established the reason for dismissal as conduct, based on the six proven or admitted allegations, and that the appeal panel later upheld the findings and sanction. The separate victimisation claim was withdrawn during the hearing and dismissed by consent.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach. It found that the investigation by PS Smith provided reasonable grounds for the respondent's belief, and that no further investigation was required into allegation 6 once the claimant's explanation had been considered against the CCTV, custody record, and his own account. The tribunal accepted the panel's finding that the claimant had deliberately falsified the custody record and had been dishonest in continuing to maintain that the entry was a mistake.

The tribunal held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses for allegations 1, 2, 3 and 6. It relied in particular on the claimant having removed detainees without authority after a prior warning, left a detainee unsupervised, given an inaccurate account, and made dishonest custody record entries. It also rejected the argument that the claimant's domestic difficulties provided material mitigation, finding that they were considered but did not cause the misconduct. The tribunal said the lengthy delay breached paragraph 11 of the ACAS Code, but found no resulting prejudice because the relevant facts were identified early, the claimant gave his explanation while matters were still fresh, and the evidence was preserved.

The tribunal also rejected arguments about continuing employment pending the hearing, the involvement of PS Smith in the disciplinary process, the consideration of the claimant's performance record, and the complaint that other officers had not been investigated. It found that continued work until suspension did not amount to waiver of dismissal, that PS Smith's role was permitted by the procedure, that the claimant's historical record was considered only on sanction, and that the allegations about other staff were too vague and unparticularised to require further investigation. The appeal was found to be fair. Accordingly, the unfair dismissal claim failed.