Caroline Nku v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2026

Caroline Nku, a black African woman employed by the Metropolitan Police, was investigated for gross misconduct after a fraudster compromised her WhatsApp account and sent requests for money to her contacts. Her promotion to Police Sergeant was rescinded while the investigation was pending. The investigation subsequently concluded that there was no case to answer, and she was promoted with back pay.

The Tribunal dismissed the direct race and sex discrimination complaints. It found procedural and evidential failings, including inadequate fact-finding, repeated inaccurate assumptions, failures to consider exculpatory material, and a default approach to promotion decisions. However, it was not satisfied that race or sex materially influenced the relevant decision-makers. There was insufficient evidence that a comparator in materially similar circumstances would have received more favourable treatment, and the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010 did not shift to the Respondent.

The Tribunal upheld the indirect race discrimination complaint. It found that the Respondent applied a provision, criterion or practice that promotions could not take place while officers were under investigation for gross misconduct. This was reflected in the automatic rescission of the Claimant's promotion and in the Promotion Review Panel's practice of pausing promotion unless exceptional circumstances existed, rather than assessing each officer's individual circumstances as required by the Police Promotion Standard Operating Procedure and National Police Promotion Framework.

The Tribunal found that the practice placed black officers at a particular disadvantage because the undisputed Casey Review evidence showed that black officers were 81% more likely than white officers to be in the misconduct system. It placed the Claimant at that disadvantage by causing her promotion to be rescinded and requiring her to return to her substantive rank and former team. Although maintaining public confidence in policing and its internal processes was a legitimate aim, the practice was not proportionate because it operated rigidly, individual assessment and extended fact-finding were less discriminatory alternatives, and it went further than reasonably necessary.

The indirect sex discrimination complaint was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that the practice placed women at a particular disadvantage compared with men. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment. The Tribunal directed that injury to feelings and any financial loss arising from the upheld indirect race discrimination claim would be considered at a separate remedy hearing.