Miss D Burns v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police — 2020

The claimant, a police officer, alleged that she made protected disclosures on 17 May 2019 when she read a handwritten document to Assistant Chief Constable Anderson and Superintendent Higham. The Tribunal held that parts of that document, relating to an alleged exposure incident in 2007 and an alleged sexual offence by a police officer, were protected disclosures. It held that a further allegation about senior officers watching events from the sidelines did not have sufficient factual content and specificity to amount to a protected disclosure.

The complaints were all presented outside the primary time limit. The last alleged detriment was on 9 July 2020, early conciliation began on 5 June 2023, and the claim was presented on 17 July 2023. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had not known about the possibility of bringing an employment tribunal claim until early 2023, but found that her ignorance was not reasonable because she had access to Police Federation advice and could have found the information by a quick internet search. It also found that she had the physical ability to present a claim and had been able to pursue complaints to other bodies.

The Tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the protected disclosure detriment complaints. It went on to state that, if it had jurisdiction, the complaints would not have been well founded: it did not find that DCI Curran's report gave an untrue account in the way alleged, found that Dr Rogerson had not received and relied on that report before making his diagnosis, and found that Superintendent Smith's 9 July 2020 letter did not misrepresent the position or refute the entirety of the protected disclosure.