Mr S Mohammed v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Police — 2025

Mr Mohammed was a probationary Police Constable at Pear Tree Station from November 2021 until he resigned in September 2022. He brought claims of harassment and direct discrimination because of race and religion/belief. The tribunal found his written evidence tended towards exaggeration and was often vague, while finding the respondent's witnesses generally credible and supported in significant part by contemporaneous records. It applied the burden of proof in section 136 EqA 2010 and the time-limit provisions in section 123 EqA 2010.

On the harassment allegations, most claims failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the conduct was related to race or religion/belief, or because the allegation was not made out on the facts. It rejected the 'Road Man', 'Shaf, you're shit', statement-fabrication, alcohol, briefing-room, social-exclusion, and 'A-Team' allegations, and also rejected the alleged racialised comments about photographs and the repetition of 'he's a fucking black bastard'. The only allegation the tribunal found factually proved was the 23 May 2022 exchange about anal sex involving PCs Lynam and Northridge. It held that this had the effect proscribed by section 26 in relation to the claimant's Muslim faith, but the complaint was out of time.

The direct discrimination claims also failed. The tribunal accepted evidence that the claimant struggled at police college and during probation, that he received help with statement writing and related tasks, and that the extension of his tutor period was part of the probation process applied to other officers. It rejected the claims about the WhatsApp group, the Tutor Pack, alleged lack of guidance, social exclusion, seating, and ignored complaints, finding no facts from which it could conclude that the respondent had treated him less favourably because of race or religion/belief.

Although the tribunal found the anal-sex allegation was made out factually, it held that the claim was out of time: the claimant should have started early conciliation by 22 August 2022, but did not do so until 23 November 2022. It found there was no continuing act and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds. All claims were dismissed and no remedy hearing was required.