Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally flawed due to the inappropriate appointment of a biased investigating officer (Governor Megicks). More importantly, the sanction of dismissal for 'unnecessary use of force' was outside the band of reasonable responses. The respondent failed to adequately explain why this conduct amounted to gross misconduct causing an irretrievable breakdown of trust, especially given the claimant's genuine belief he was acting to preserve the prisoner's life under Article 2. The tribunal also found the respondent's conclusions that the claimant had lied and shown no contrition were unreasonable and inconsistent with the evidence.

Governor Megicks sent the claimant a YouTube video link relating to the claimant's uncle who was in the IRA. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to the claimant's Northern Irish race, and reasonably created a hostile and offensive environment given the content (a shooting) and the context of Megicks' prior behaviour towards the claimant.

The text message video was also found to relate to the claimant's Catholic religion, as Northern Irish Catholicism is inherently linked to the subject matter (IRA). It reasonably created a hostile and offensive environment for the same reasons as the race harassment claim.

During a promotion board interview in December 2020, Governor Megicks asked the claimant to say 'motorcycle helmet' in his Northern Irish accent in front of other colleagues. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to the claimant's race (accent inherently linked to being Northern Irish), and it reasonably created a degrading and humiliating environment by trivialising a formal process at the claimant's expense.

Governor Megicks refused the claimant promotion in May 2020 despite him being the top scorer. The respondent's explanation (a live investigation) was not accepted. Given the background of Megicks' behaviour and proven harassment, and the lack of evidence supporting the respondent's reason, the tribunal found the burden of proof shifted and was not discharged. The failure to promote was unwanted conduct related to race that reasonably created a hostile and degrading environment by holding back the claimant's career.

Same facts and reasoning as the race harassment claim regarding the May 2020 promotion refusal.

Between 13-26 October 2021, during the investigation, Governor Megicks told the claimant's union representative (Mr Duncan) that it would be better for the claimant to resign. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct. Given Megicks' prior proven harassment and the shifted burden of proof, the tribunal found the conduct was related to the claimant's race. In the context of the claimant's employment hanging in the balance and Megicks' inappropriate appointment as investigating officer, it reasonably created the requisite hostile environment.

Same facts and reasoning as the race harassment claim regarding the October 2021 resignation suggestion.

The tribunal found the 'motorcycle helmet' incident in December 2020 was related to the claimant's Northern Irish accent (race) but not connected to his Catholic religion, so the religious harassment claim on this allegation failed.

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct (unnecessary use of force), not the claimant's race. There was no evidence that Governor Butler or Governor Monaghan were influenced by the claimant's race in their decision-making. The three alleged comparators were not appropriate comparators under s23 EqA due to material differences in circumstances. A hypothetical comparator would have been treated the same way.

Same reasoning as the race direct discrimination claim regarding dismissal: the reason was conduct, not religion.

The dismissal itself was found not to be related to the claimant's race — the reason was conduct. Therefore the harassment claim based on the dismissal failed.

The dismissal itself was found not to be related to the claimant's religion — the reason was conduct. Therefore the harassment claim based on the dismissal failed.

The tribunal found the 'motorcycle helmet' incident was related to the claimant's accent (race) but not his religion, so the direct religious discrimination claim on this allegation also failed (having already upheld the race harassment claim).