In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Two ET1s dated 27 February 2023 and 28 July 2023 alleged detriments under s.47B ERA 1996 said to follow protected disclosures made in August and September 2019 about a silver statuette commissioned for the HAC centenary and about the performance of the Special Constabulary. The first claim also included allegations against Mr James Thompson and detriments 4 and 5, but those were withdrawn under rule 52.

On the statuette issue, the tribunal accepted that the 4 September 2019 paper disclosed information, but held it was not a qualifying protected disclosure. It found the paper was one-sided, omitted Mr Phipson's 13 June 2019 email and other context, and was motivated by the claimant's wish to remove Mr Phipson. The majority found that the claimant did not believe the matter was in the public interest and did not believe it tended to show fraud; in any event, such a belief would not have been reasonable. Employment Judge Adkin dissented on the narrow fraud-belief point.

On the performance papers, the tribunal accepted that the claimant believed the information was in the public interest and that the papers disclosed falling special constable numbers, hours and the council tax rebate issue. It nevertheless held that he did not, at the time, identify those matters as a breach of a legal obligation under s.35 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011; that legal framing was a later rationalisation. The tribunal therefore unanimously held that none of the 2019 disclosures satisfied s.43B ERA 1996.

Detriments 1 to 3 were rejected on time-limit grounds. The tribunal held that the 2021 'creating noise' comment and vehicle restriction complaints were out of time, and that the alleged remark about destroying the claimant's life and removing his MBE was also out of time and not proved as alleged. It found no continuing act and no basis to extend time.

For detriments 6 to 10, the tribunal found that Mr Betts and Commander Khan were implementing a genuine restructure of the Special Constabulary, not acting because of protected disclosures. The claimant's paper was considered within the consultation process, his meeting requests did not amount to actionable detriments, and the January/February 2023 options to remain a Special Constable, transfer, or retire were the same broad options being given to other senior officers in different circumstances. Claim 2's uniform and later solicitor-letter complaints were also dismissed as out of time and/or unsupported. No monetary award was made.