Mr. A. Wisbey v Commissioner of the City of London Police and 1 other — 2019

The claimant, a City of London police officer and authorised firearms officer with congenital colour vision deficiency, challenged his removal in April 2017 from firearms duties and rapid response driving. The tribunal treated the firearms testing requirements, including the Ishihara screen and the follow-on tests, as the relevant PCPs for the firearms issue, and treated the driving restriction as a separate PCP based on removing officers with colour vision defects from rapid response driving until risk had been assessed.

The firearms claim failed. Although the tribunal accepted that men were at a particular disadvantage because colour vision defects are more common in men, and that the claimant was personally disadvantaged, it held that the first respondent's requirement that an officer pass both follow-on tests after failing Ishihara was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of safe firearms deployment. The tribunal relied on the risks of mistaken identification and public confidence, the imperfections of the available tests, and the evidence that more detailed occupational research would take time and substantial cost. It also found that Mr Wedge of the College of Policing influenced the March 2017 decision, but the separate section 111 claim against the second respondent was not upheld.

The driving complaint succeeded. The tribunal found that the first respondent had adopted a practice of not allowing an officer with a colour vision defect to continue rapid response driving until the risk had been assessed, that men were again disadvantaged, and that the measure was not proportionate. It compared the respondent's approach with DVLA group 2 standards, noted the absence of evidence that a blanket ban was necessary, and held that there was no proper basis for excluding officers with anything other than the most severe defects. Although the claim was out of time on its face, the tribunal extended time as just and equitable after applying the Keeble factors.

The tribunal therefore made a declaration that the first respondent indirectly discriminated against the claimant by removing him from rapid response driving between March 2017 and November 2017, but it made no award of compensation. The claimant was later restored to firearms and response driving after further testing and review, and the judgment records no monetary remedy for any of the claims.