Mr Mohamed Chakir v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2025

The claimant was a probationary police constable whose probation was extended while he recovered from a back injury and completed required competencies. The tribunal found that the respondent accepted disability and knowledge, and that the duty to make reasonable adjustments arose at relevant times, but held that reasonable adjustments had been made, including non-operational duties and extensions of probation. It found no breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal dismissed the section 15 disability discrimination claims. It found insufficient causation between disability-related absence and the initial triggering of the regulation 13 process, and held in any event that use of that process was proportionate. For dismissal, it found disability-related absence formed part of the background, but the operative concerns were conduct and integrity matters; dismissal was held to be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims concerning attendance, performance, conduct and standards for officers.

The harassment claims related to disability and age were dismissed. The tribunal accepted some alleged comments or attendance at meetings occurred, but found they did not have the purpose of harassment and it was not reasonable for them to have the statutory effect. The direct age discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no facts showing age influenced the decision to believe PC Persaud rather than the claimant.

The victimisation claims were dismissed. Although the respondent accepted the grievance and oral comments were protected acts, the tribunal accepted Inspector Branford's explanations that the regulation 13 steps and comments were because of conduct concerns and unsupported allegations against other officers, not because of the protected acts. Race discrimination and race-related harassment claims were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal.