Case 2409140/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Stephanie Davies v The Chief Constable of Cheshire Police — 2022
- Case reference
- 2409140/2021
- Decision date
- 18 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
- Panel members
- Mr A Clarke, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Stephanie Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy majority, the tribunal held that Miss Davies made a qualifying protected disclosure to DSI Blackwell on 12 September 2018 when she sent him her 2018 Report and photographs. The majority found that she reasonably believed the information disclosed tended to show a criminal offence had been committed or a miscarriage of justice had taken place, bringing the disclosure within section 43B(1)(a) and (c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 43C as a disclosure to her employer. Mr Clarke dissented, taking the view that the claimant was not reasonable in that belief.
Unanimously, the tribunal held that the claimant's other disclosures to other persons were not protected disclosures. Those were treated as disclosures of exceptionally serious failures under section 43H, but the tribunal found that, in all the circumstances of the case, it was not reasonable for her to make those disclosures under section 43G. The judgment records that the case would proceed to final hearing on the public interest disclosure detriment claims under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and disability discrimination claims under sections 20/21 and 27 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | This judgment decided protected disclosure status only. By majority, the tribunal held that the claimant made a qualifying disclosure to DSI Blackwell on 12 September 2018 when she sent him her 2018 Report and photographs, but it did not determine the final s.47B detriment claim or any remedy. Mr Clarke dissented on whether the claimant reasonably believed the information disclosed tended to show a criminal offence or miscarriage of justice. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.43B(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.43B(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.43G ERA 1996
- s.43H ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.