Claimant v Metropolitan Police Service
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimants made five protected disclosures relating to safeguarding breaches (risk assessments, improper employment of cadets, fraud, indecent images). Tribunal found no causal link between the protected disclosures and the alleged detriments. The disciplinary investigation arose from an anonymous allegation of financial impropriety, not from the disclosures. Key decision-makers were unaware of the protected disclosures when taking adverse action.
Tribunal found three detriments established (being spoken to sharply by a sergeant, being subject to a disciplinary investigation, and having restrictions imposed). However, none were done 'on the ground that' claimants made protected disclosures. Detriments were either justified responses to legitimate concerns (disciplinary investigation) or unrelated to disclosures (sharp words following a groundless concern).
No dismissal established. Claimants resigned. Tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract by the employer. Even if there had been a breach, claimants affirmed the contract by continuing to work after the last alleged detriment, thereby losing the right to claim constructive dismissal. Furthermore, the reason for any dismissal (if established) was not the protected disclosures.
Facts
Two former Metropolitan Police Constables who coordinated Volunteer Police Cadet units made multiple disclosures about safeguarding breaches between 2020-2023, including failures to conduct risk assessments, improper employment of cadets, and potential fraud. In August 2023, both were subject to a disciplinary investigation following an anonymous allegation of financial impropriety (misuse of cadet funds). They were restricted from their normal duties pending investigation. The investigation concluded in February 2024 with no case to answer. Mr Seabright retired in December 2023; Mr Kiddle resigned in November 2024 after a second disciplinary investigation was commenced.
Decision
The Tribunal found that while the claimants made some protected disclosures and suffered some detriments (particularly the disciplinary investigation and restrictions), there was no causal link between the two. The disciplinary investigation arose from a legitimate anonymous complaint, not retaliation for whistleblowing. Key decision-makers were unaware of the protected disclosures. Most alleged detriments were either not established or were justified management actions. The constructive dismissal claims failed as there was no repudiatory breach and the claimants had affirmed their contracts by continuing to work. Claims also failed on time limit grounds.
Practical note
Making protected disclosures does not immunise an employee from legitimate disciplinary processes, and establishing causation between disclosures and adverse treatment requires evidence that decision-makers knew of the disclosures and were influenced by them.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2218585/2024
- Decision date
- 3 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 13
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- emergency services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Constable (Volunteer Police Cadet Coordinator)
- Service
- 25 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister