Miss G Nicholls, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The Claimant applied to become a Police Officer with Northamptonshire Police in November 2017. He told the respondent that he had ongoing Employment Tribunal proceedings against Hertfordshire Constabulary, and later alleged that Northamptonshire Police victimised him by not progressing vetting, by carrying out an excessive vetting process, and by not appointing him because of that protected act.

The tribunal found that the respondent had not permanently rejected the Claimant. It accepted Mr Burke's evidence that the internal wording of "reject" and the Oracle status entries created a prima facie case, but concluded that those records referred only to rejection from the current intake and had been misunderstood by MFSS. The application was instead held open.

The tribunal accepted DS Barsby's evidence that vetting was paused because Avon and Somerset Police had not provided information needed for the vetting decision, and that the approach taken was consistent with the APP vetting guidance and Code of Practice. It found the vetting hold was not an excessive process and that DS Barsby did not subject the Claimant to a detriment. Applying the burden of proof under s.136 EqA and the evidence as a whole, the tribunal held that any delay was caused by the absence of third-party information, not by the Claimant's protected act, and the victimisation claim was not well founded. The only remaining issue mentioned in the judgment was the Claimant's costs application, which was left for post-hearing written submissions.