Claimant v Crown Prosecution Service

Claim that issuing first WNEA on 25 July 2022 was discrimination arising from disability failed. Tribunal found it was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (efficient service delivery, good use of public funds). Although only a first-level warning and claimant had mental health difficulties triggered by work events, his 12-day absence affected specialist work no one else could do. Out of time in any event.

Claim that refusing appeal against first WNEA on 1 September 2022 was discrimination arising from disability failed. Appeal officer (Ms Nicolson) reasonably concluded procedures followed and decision appropriate given level of disability-related absence and adjustments in place. Proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim. Out of time in any event.

Claim that issuing second/final WNEA on 24 July 2023 was discrimination arising from disability failed. Claimant had 76 days disability-related absence since first WNEA. Tribunal found respondent had jurisdiction under policy to hold review and issue final warning. Although serious impact on claimant's mental health, it was proportionate given level of absence affecting service delivery and not yet dismissal stage.

Claim that refusing appeal against final WNEA on 31 August 2023 was discrimination arising from disability failed. Appeal officer (Mr Weyell) reasonably concluded over 70 days absence could not be sustained given claimant's seniority and limited resources. Proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim. Procedural corrections made regarding non-disability absence reference.

Claim failed because no PCP established. Tribunal found respondent did not have a practice of allowing significant delays in disciplinary processes. Delays in first disciplinary (8 weeks between notification and hearing invitation) were due to unique circumstances: document volume, succession of holidays, finding appropriate decision-maker. Not replicated elsewhere and no evidence this was normal practice.

First disciplinary process: Claim failed because no PCP of 'significant delay' established. Eight-week delay from 20 July to 12 September 2023 was unique to claimant's circumstances (holidays, document volume, finding senior decision-maker). Tribunal noted failure to keep claimant informed was insensitive but not an identified PCP, and no evidence it was respondent's practice. Second disciplinary process: Seven-week total process (24 May to 12 July 2024) not 'significant delay' - reasonable timescale. No PCP applied.