Ms E Farrell and Mr D Frew Mr D Marshall v Represented by: Mr C Milsom - Counsel British Transport Police and 1 other — 2023

The claimant, a British Transport Police superintendent seconded to the College of Policing, challenged the end of his secondment after publishing a Policing Insight article about the new Executive Leadership Programme and after a reflective-practice referral over alleged exaggeration in his ELP application. The tribunal found most EqA complaints were presented out of time, but extended time as just and equitable under section 123 EqA after considering the Keeble and DPP v Marshall factors. It also held, applying Grainger and related authorities, that the claimant's beliefs about police neutrality, a moral obligation to uphold that neutrality, and merit-based progression were protected beliefs, and that those beliefs were manifested in the Article.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Tuffin and Ms Thomas were concerned about the Article being published without prior consultation or fact-checking, the inaccuracies they identified, and the effect on trust in the claimant's judgment in a role requiring dealings with senior officers. It found that the 27 July meetings, the 28 July email sharing the reflective-practice matter, the decision to end the secondment, and the handling of alternative employment were taken for those reasons and not because of the claimant's protected beliefs. The direct discrimination, harassment, constructive dismissal, and the relevant parts of the grievance-handling allegations therefore failed.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that only the grievance to the second respondent was a protected act for EqA purposes because it expressly alleged disability discrimination; the grievance to the first respondent and later addendum did not. On whistleblowing, it found both grievances contained qualifying and protected disclosures under ERA 1996, but no later detriment was shown to have been caused by those disclosures. The second respondent's internal complaint response was partly upheld on procedural and notice issues, but not on discrimination or Convention-rights grounds, the first respondent's grievance and appeal were rejected, the indirect discrimination complaint was withdrawn, and no tribunal remedy was awarded because the claim was dismissed.