Mr D Quarm v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing concerning applications to strike out or require deposits in a claim about Sgt Keating's refusal to record the Claimant's complaint about DS Murphy. The Claimant alleged that the refusal subjected him to detriments because he had brought race discrimination proceedings and, in the alternative, because he had made protected disclosures. The Respondent said the complaint was not recordable under section 29 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and was an abuse of the complaints process.

The tribunal refused to strike out the Claimant's claims. It found it arguable that refusal to hear an employee's concern could amount to a detriment, and that there were issues requiring evidence about the complaint routes available and whether the College of Policing reporting concerns guidance affected the position under section 29. The tribunal also refused the Claimant's application to strike out the response, finding that the Respondent's reasons were not obviously wrong.

The tribunal nevertheless found that both the race victimisation and protected disclosure detriment allegations had little reasonable prospects of success. It considered Sgt Keating's second reason, that the complaint was an abuse of process, appeared on its face to be an extremely sound procedural reason, and that the three matters the Claimant said were new did not appear to concern DS Murphy. The Claimant was ordered to pay a £75 deposit for each allegation if he wished to continue advancing them.