Cases6004396/2024

Claimant v Crown Prosecution Service

1 October 2025Before Employment Judge D WrightCroydonremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Whistleblowingstruck out

The tribunal struck out allegations 33, 34, 36g, 36h and 36i as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that whether or not the claimant made a qualifying protected disclosure, the detriments and dismissal were not as a result of that disclosure but because the respondent had no option but to terminate employment due to the claimant's ineligibility under Civil Service Nationality Rules.

Detrimentstruck out

Detriment claims (allegations 33, 34, 36g, 36h, 36i) struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that any detriments were not retribution for making the respondent aware of ineligibility but a necessary consequence of the claimant being ineligible for civil service employment under nationality rules.

Facts

The claimant, a Chinese national with refugee status, was employed by the CPS as a Casework Assistant earning £21,930. He discovered he was ineligible for civil service employment under Civil Service Nationality Rules and reported this to his employer on 12 February 2024. He was suspended, and dismissed with notice on 1 March 2024. The respondent explored whether an Alien Certificate could be obtained but determined this was not appropriate for his junior role which could be filled by UK nationals.

Decision

The tribunal struck out specific allegations (33, 34, 36g, 36h, 36i) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found that even if the claimant made a protected disclosure by reporting his ineligibility, his dismissal and any detriments were not because of that disclosure but because the respondent had no option but to terminate his employment due to Civil Service Nationality Rules.

Practical note

A dismissal resulting from an employee's ineligibility to work under mandatory nationality rules cannot succeed as a whistleblowing claim, even where the employee disclosed their own ineligibility, because the dismissal is a necessary consequence of the legal bar to employment rather than retaliation for the disclosure.

Legal authorities cited

Case details

Case number
6004396/2024
Decision date
1 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Crown Prosecution Service
Sector
central government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Casework Assistant
Salary band
£20,000–£25,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No