The claimant sought to allege race discrimination and appealed refusal by the respondents to release required documents. She had been turned down for an appointment to the Trident task force, and sought disclosure of the reasons. The respondent said that she had failed in her vetting, and that they were prohibited in law from disclosing the information sought, either to the claimant or the court. The EAT had held a hearing from which the claimant and her advisers had been excluded, and then accepted that the police were prohibited from disclosing the material.
Held: ‘Ordinarily, case management orders made in the exercise of the employment tribunal’s wide discretion will not be disturbed on an appeal, which is confined to questions of law’ The EAT had been wrong to hear the evidence in the absence of the defence, but the defect was curable. Procedures could be adopted to minimise the impact on the case of the restrictions, which could restrict either side. Any question of interference with the right to a fair trial might proportionate and for the legitimate aim of protecting national security, but this would be a matter for the tribunal. The tribunal had been wrong to make an ‘unless order’ which couldnot be complied with by the police without breaking the law. The case would be remitted, but the tribunal should disregard that part of the EAT judgment derived from the wrongful hearing. Matters of EC and ECHR law should be decided on the facts as presented in due course.
Judges:
Mummery LJ, Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Wall LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1041, Times 07-Aug-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1155, [2007] IRLR 73, [2007] ICR 60, [2006] Po LR 217
Links:
Statutes:
Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a) 4, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2001 18(7)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Burke, Regina (on the Application of) v General Medical Council and others (Official Solicitor and others intervening) CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant suffered a congenital degenerative brain condition inevitably resulting in a future need to receive nutrition and hydration by artificial means. He was concerned that a decision might be taken by medical practitioners responsible for . .
Appeal from – Chief Superintendent John Coles Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v J Barracks EAT 19-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. Appellants refused to reveal the reason for black officer’s unsuccessful application to Trident police team, following vetting procedure. Held that they were . .
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
Cited – Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary ECJ 15-May-1986
The principles of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights must be taken into consideration in community law. The principle of effective judicial control laid down in article 6 of Council Directive 76/207, a principle which . .
Cited – Union Nationale Des Entraineurs Et Cadres Techniques Professionnels Du Football (UNECTEF) v Heylens And Others ECJ 15-Oct-1987
Europa The lawful requirement whereby, in the various member states, admission to certain occupations is subjected to the possession of diplomas constitutes a restriction on the effective exercise of the freedom . .
Cited – Mantovanelli v France ECHR 18-Mar-1997
Hudoc Violation of Art. 6-1; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
An alleged Article 6 breach has to be considered in the overall context . .
Cited – NJ v Essex County Council and Another; In re J (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial); Re J (a child) (care proceedings: fair trial) CA 11-May-2006
The family complained that the local authority had, in assessing the need for a care order, failed to follow the guideliens set down in In Re L, leading to an infringement of their human rights.
Held: Neither in the lower court nor here had . .
Cited – Chief Superintendent John Coles Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v J Barracks EAT 19-Sep-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure – Striking-out/dismissal. Appellants refused to reveal the reason for black officer’s unsuccessful application to Trident police team, following vetting procedure. Held that they were . .
Cited by:
Cited – Amwell View School v Dogherty EAT 15-Sep-2006
amwell_dogherty
The claimant had secretly recorded the disciplinary hearings and also the deliberations of the disciplinary panel after their retirement. The tribunal had at a case management hearing admitted the recordings as evidence, and the defendant appealed, . .
Cited – Tariq v The Home Office EAT 16-Oct-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Disclosure
HUMAN RIGHTS
(1) The procedure sanctioned by rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and by the Employment Tribunals (National Security) Rules . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Litigation Practice, Police
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243362