Mr M Rashad v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police — 2024

The tribunal held that complaints 1 to 12 were struck out because they were presented outside the primary time limit and the claimant had not shown it was just and equitable to extend time. It accepted the claimant was legally represented and experienced in tribunal litigation, but found that the delay, the age of the events, the involvement of retired officers, and the prejudice to the respondent and others weighed against an extension. The tribunal also held that the more recent complaints did not establish a continuing course of unlawful conduct that could bring the earlier allegations back into time.

On complaint 14, concerning the police dispatcher's use of the word "pakis" while relaying the caller's description of alleged assailants, the tribunal accepted that the language was unwanted and related to race, but held that it did not have the proscribed effect for the claimant. It found that the claimant knew the dispatcher was repeating the caller's words, that he did not in fact feel that his dignity had been violated or that a hostile environment had been created, and that it would not have been reasonable in the context to require the dispatcher to filter the report in the way suggested. The claimant withdrew the direct discrimination and victimisation parts of that complaint in closing submissions. On complaint 15, the tribunal rejected the factual premise that CI Bainbridge had concluded the dispatcher had done nothing wrong. Complaint 16, about not requiring CI Bainbridge to undertake equality and diversity training, was dismissed because the tribunal found that omission was not conduct of the kind alleged, was not related to race, and did not amount to victimisation or direct discrimination.

Complaints 17 and 18 concerned allegations linked to misconduct referrals about the claimant. The tribunal found that the anonymous allegations made to the Counter Corruption Unit were not made by Sgt Marchant, CI Pitt, Mr Moir or DCI Bonner, and that none of them coordinated the report. It also found that Sergeant Marchant's later email about the speeding matter reflected concerns generated by enquiries made after a ticket office request and did not amount to the pleaded victimising allegation. Complaint 19, about the March 2022 Regulation 17 notice in relation to Allegation 4, was dismissed because the tribunal found there were grounds to pursue the matter and no facts from which race or protected acts could be inferred. Complaint 20, which complained that DSE failed to investigate the motivations behind allegations 1 to 3, was dismissed because the tribunal found the investigators did consider motivation where relevant and that the pleaded omission was not made out.

Finally, complaints 21 and 22 about the handling of the Sgt Harker grievance were dismissed. The tribunal found there was no deliberate failure by DSE to deal promptly with the grievance, noting that the issues were wide-ranging, involved retired officers, and required investigation and legal input. It also found that DI Agar's decision to assess the upheld breaches against Sgt Harker as misconduct rather than gross misconduct was not shown to subject the claimant to detriment or to be because of race or protected acts. The tribunal's final order was that complaints 1 to 12 were struck out for lack of jurisdiction and none of the remaining complaints was well founded.