Member J Chalmers Tribunal Member A Matheson PC S Jones v Respondent — 2025

The claimants, both police constables and authorised firearms officers in OSD, were filmed after a brief interaction with Tallia Storm on 1 March 2024. The video was circulated on social media on 2 March, AM spoke to each claimant on 4 March, and on 6 March GR decided to permanently withdraw their firearms authorisations. On 8 March they were told the decision had been taken and that they would not continue in OSD. The Professional Standards outcome on 13 March later described the conduct as unprofessional and a momentary lapse in judgment, and recommended improvement action rather than a punitive sanction.

The tribunal upheld direct sex discrimination under s.13 EqA in relation to GR's 6 March decision and the later requirement that the claimants transfer out of OSD. It found GR's decision was driven by his subjective view of male officers and a perceived 'boys' club' culture in armed policing, rather than by an assessment of the claimants as individuals. The tribunal relied on the absence of any contemporaneous procedure, notes or proper inquiry, the lack of urgency, the later ex post facto rationalisations, and the fact that GR had not sought input from the claimants, their managers or the FARI officer before deciding to remove them from armed policing.

The tribunal dismissed the direct discrimination allegation based on the 8 March meeting and accepted the respondent's case that the meeting was to communicate the decision. It also dismissed the harassment allegations under s.26 EqA, holding that the references to misogyny and senior management perceptions were about how the incident might be viewed, not unwanted conduct related to sex. The complaint that BS failed to uphold the grievance was also dismissed as harassment, and the victimisation complaint about combining the grievance appeal and the separate complaint for AS to hear was dismissed because there was no evidence the decision was taken because the claimants had made protected acts.

The tribunal held that the conduct complained of formed a continuing course of action for limitation purposes, so the claims were in time. It also recorded that the direct discrimination finding was tied to GR's decision-making between March and October 2024, including the later insistence that the claimants complete transfer forms and exclude OSD roles from those forms.

On remedy, PC Jones was awarded £24,800.59 net, comprising £2,646.59 loss of income, £20,000 injury to feelings and £2,154 interest. The tribunal found his sickness absence from January to March 2025 was principally caused by the unlawful treatment, and that the treatment left him humiliated, affected his career prospects and personal life, and led him to question whether he could remain in policing.

PC Tunnock was awarded £23,824.56 net, comprising £1,670.56 loss of income, £20,000 injury to feelings and £2,154 interest. The tribunal accepted that he had missed out on a temporary acting sergeant opportunity, had undergone counselling, and that the events had significantly affected his mental health, trust in his employer and prospects for continuing a career in armed policing. The combined net award was £48,625.15.