Mr C Khan For the v Mr M Ley - Morgan — 2021

The tribunal considered the claimant's email of 8 November 2018 to Sgt Rainbird, which listed five manoeuvres regularly carried out by SEG drivers and asked for clarification of the legal position and jobs policy. It found that the email set out information in reasonably clear detail, including examples, and that it was not important that the underlying matters may already have been known to the recipient.

The tribunal found that the matters raised tended to show criminal offences, breach of legal obligations, and endangerment of health and safety. It accepted that the claimant intended the email to be understood as raising concerns that SEG officers could be exposed to prosecution and that the manoeuvres could pose risks to officers and the public. The tribunal also found that the wording about dangerous driving under sections 2 and 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was intended to signal that these manoeuvres were potentially dangerous and needed safeguards and guidance.

Although the claimant's email used oblique language and sought clarification, the tribunal held that this did not prevent the communication from being a disclosure of information. Applying the approach in Kilraine, it found that the request for clarification and guidance was intertwined with the disclosure itself, and it rejected the respondent's submission that the email was only a normal operational request for clarification.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had a reasonable belief that the matters disclosed exposed officers to risk of prosecution and officers and the public to risk of harm, and it held that the disclosure was made in the public interest. The judgment therefore concluded that the claimant had made a qualifying protected disclosure within section 43B ERA 1996. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.