Mr D Warburton v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police — 2023

Mr D Warburton applied in 2019 for appointment as a police constable with Bedfordshire Police after an earlier vetting refusal by Hertfordshire Constabulary. He disclosed disability, and the respondent accepted at the hearing that he was disabled by reason of anxiety and depression and knew of that disability. Vetting officer Mr Lamb and later appeal decision-maker Mr Jeram relied on the claimant’s communications with police staff, his 1998 remark about Muslims, his litigation history, and his publication "Drawing the Thin Blue Line" when refusing clearance on 27 February 2020 and maintaining that refusal on appeal in July 2020.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the respondent knew the claimant had brought earlier discrimination proceedings and that the protected act was referred to in the vetting material. It found, however, that the refusal of clearance was not because of that claim. The tribunal held that the real concern was the claimant’s wider pattern of conflict with employers and colleagues, the derogatory and offensive tone of his correspondence, the 1998 remark, and the risk those matters raised for policing duties. The protected act was found to be only a very small and separable part of the decision, so the victimisation complaint was dismissed.

On the section 15 claim, the tribunal found that the tone and language of the claimant’s communications arose in consequence of his disability and that refusal of vetting was unfavourable treatment. It nevertheless held that the respondent had a legitimate aim of recruiting well conducted police officers and that refusing vetting was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The tribunal considered the concerns about the claimant’s communications, the 1998 remark, and the published material to be genuine reasons for rejecting him, and concluded that no lesser measure put forward by the claimant would have achieved the same aim.

The reasonable adjustments complaint also failed. The tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP requiring applicants not to be offensive or derogatory to staff, and that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because of his disability. But it held that the proposed adjustments, including disregarding the earlier communications, lowering the threshold, offering guidance, holding a vetting interview, speaking to interviewers or the Chief Constable, or delaying the vetting decision, would not have removed that disadvantage in practice and were not reasonable in the circumstances. All complaints were dismissed and no award was made.