Claimant v The Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did make several protected disclosures about a sergeant (X) within his command, concerning misconduct including alleged assault, unauthorised absences, and failure to carry required equipment. However, the alleged detriments (X's grievance implicating the claimant and X's all-staff email alleging criminal offences) were not done on the ground of the protected disclosures. X was not aware of most disclosures when he submitted his initial grievance, and his all-staff email was motivated by his belief that he had been discriminated against and that there was a conspiracy against him, rather than because the claimant had made protected disclosures. The tribunal found X's actions were separable from the disclosures themselves.
Facts
The claimant was a police inspector who managed a sergeant (X) and made multiple disclosures to Professional Standards Department about X's conduct, including alleged assault on a member of public, unauthorised absences during duty to visit a woman, failure to carry required equipment (PAVA spray and Samsung device), and disobeying orders. X was served with misconduct notices in January 2021 and went on long-term sick leave, subsequently retiring on ill-health grounds in March 2022. X submitted a grievance in March 2021 and later sent an all-staff email in February 2022 alleging the claimant had committed criminal offences including harassment, bribery, and breaches of equality and health and safety legislation.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant had made several protected disclosures to PSD about X's conduct which he reasonably believed showed breaches of Police Standards and was in the public interest. However, the claim failed on causation. X's initial grievance did not implicate the claimant and X was complimentary about him. X's later all-staff email alleging criminal conduct was not made because of the protected disclosures but because X believed he had been discriminated against and that senior officers (including the claimant) were part of a conspiracy to harm him. The allegations were separable from the disclosures themselves.
Practical note
In whistleblowing cases involving allegations made by the subject of the disclosure, tribunals must carefully examine causation and apply the separability principle: an employer (or in this case, a colleague) may respond to consequences of a disclosure or put their side of the case without that response being 'because of' the protected disclosure itself.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401657/2022
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Police Inspector
- Service
- 30 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister