Case 3200501/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M R Azam v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200501/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Jones Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Legg, Mrs B Saund
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M R Azam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M R Azam, an Asian man of Pakistani origin and a Police Constable in the Metropolitan Police, brought complaints of direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (cases 3200501/2023, 3201242/2023 and 3201264/2024). The matter was heard at East London Hearing Centre over multiple sitting days in April and May 2025, with deliberations in chambers on various dates between May and October 2025, before Employment Judge J Jones sitting with Ms M Legg and Mrs B Saund as lay members. The claimant was represented by Ms Ahari of counsel; the respondent by Mr P Martin of counsel.
The evidence concerned the East Area Basic Command Unit, the Metropolitan Police's 'acting up' processes (both local and corporate), and complaint-handling. The Tribunal heard live evidence from numerous senior officers and HQ personnel, and considered Baroness Casey's 2023 review of the Metropolitan Police as background context.
The Tribunal dismissed both the complaints of direct race discrimination and the complaints of victimisation, finding none of them well-founded. On individual allegations the Tribunal applied the shifting burden of proof, considered hypothetical comparators where no real comparator was available, and accepted the respondent's explanations as the genuine reasons for the relevant treatment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Complaints of direct race discrimination not well-founded; dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Complaints of victimisation not well-founded; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
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.