Claimant v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Police
Outcome
Individual claims
All harassment claims related to race failed. Tribunal found the claimant did not establish facts from which it could conclude harassment occurred. Most allegations not proven factually; where conduct established (e.g. 'Road Man' comment, food comment), tribunal found no link to protected characteristic or conduct not related to race.
All harassment claims related to religious belief failed except one. On 23 May 2022, PC Lynam and PC Northridge made comments about anal sex in the claimant's presence. Tribunal found this related to Muslim faith and had proscribed effect under section 26. However, claim was out of time (over three months before early conciliation) and tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds.
All direct race discrimination claims failed. Tribunal found respondent did not subject claimant to treatment alleged. Where treatment occurred, claimant failed to show less favourable treatment than comparators or that race was reason. Examples: tutor pack not started because claimant had not achieved competencies (not due to race); probation extended due to performance issues documented at 5-week review; exclusion from social events not proven.
All direct religious belief discrimination claims failed. Tribunal found claimant fabricated or exaggerated allegations. For example, claimant alleged he raised discrimination concerns at 5-week review with Sgt Palfreyman, but tribunal preferred respondent's evidence supported by contemporaneous notes, claimant's own later statement to PSD saying he never raised concerns, and witness evidence. Other claims similarly not established on facts.
Facts
Claimant, an Asian Muslim, worked as a probationary Police Constable from November 2021 to October 2022 after struggling at Police College. He was assigned to Group 2 at Pear Tree Station with PC Jago as his tutor. He alleged racist and religiously discriminatory harassment and direct discrimination by colleagues including PC Lynam, PC Northridge, PC Gleghorn and others, citing incidents including being called 'Road Man', comments about his speech and food, exclusion from social events, a conversation about anal sex, and lack of support from his Line Manager Sgt Palfreyman. He tendered his resignation in September 2022 and brought claims in January 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the claimant's evidence vague, exaggerated, and at times fabricated, contradicted by his own contemporaneous statements. Most allegations were not proven factually. One harassment claim (comments about anal sex related to Muslim faith) succeeded on facts but was out of time and tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The tribunal found respondent's witnesses credible and that legitimate performance concerns, not discrimination, explained the claimant's treatment. The claimant failed to establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred.
Practical note
Even where one discrete act of harassment is established, a claimant who fabricates or exaggerates other claims, contradicts their own contemporaneous evidence, and delays unreasonably in bringing proceedings may lose their entire case on credibility and time-bar grounds.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2600122/2023
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Constable (Student Police Constable)
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister