Mr S Feeny, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, a police sergeant, brought protected disclosure detriment claims under section 47B ERA 1996 arising from events connected with the criminal proceedings involving PC Tom Lennon. She said she made four protected disclosures between 2 March and 24 June 2018: an oral report to DC Rebecca Smithson and PS Sonja Morris after observing and overhearing conduct in the witness care room, a written statement on 2/3 March 2018, a further statement on 6 March 2018, and a later disciplinary statement on 24 June 2018. The tribunal held that each disclosure was qualifying under section 43B(1)(b) because the claimant reasonably believed she was reporting breaches of legal obligations in the police Code of Ethics, but it rejected the contention that the disclosures fell within section 43B(1)(a) because there was no reasonable basis for believing perjury or perverting the course of justice had occurred or was about to occur.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was credible and did not act in bad faith when she reported the witness room concerns. It found that her failure to challenge the officers immediately was explained by intimidation, her inexperience as a newly promoted sergeant, and the sequence of events in the courtroom. It also found that her later written accounts were influenced by her close relationship with Lennon and a lack of objectivity, which meant she overstated the extent to which the evidence in court conflicted with what she had heard in the witness room. On that basis, the tribunal concluded there was no reasonable basis for her belief that the officers were committing perjury.

On detriments, the tribunal rejected the case that the Regulation 15 notice issued on 11 April 2018, the duty restrictions imposed on 12 April 2018, the initiation of gross misconduct proceedings, and the manner of the misconduct interview were all caused by the protected disclosures. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the Regulation 15 notice was issued because of genuine concerns about the claimant's own conduct, including failing to challenge inappropriate behaviour, sending texts to Lennon while still a prosecution witness, and making allegations that were found to be unfounded. It also accepted the risk assessment rationale for the temporary restrictions and found that the misconduct process flowed from the notice rather than from the disclosures.

The tribunal held that the questioning at the misconduct interview was relevant and appropriate, even though the claimant experienced it as oppressive, patronising and hostile. It accepted that one remark by SG, including swearing, was unprofessional and that he apologised, but it found no causal link between that conduct and the disclosures. The final judgment was that the protected disclosure detriment claim failed and was dismissed. No award was made.