EAT The Claimant was a serving Police Constable. He was dismissed for disciplinary reasons after a hearing before the Police Disciplinary Board which ordered his dismissal. He appealed to the Chief Constable who upheld the decision of the Police Disciplinary Board. The Claimant then began proceedings in the Employment Tribunal asserting that he had been dismissed for a reason that was automatically unfair [‘whistleblowing’]. The Respondent argued that the proceedings sought to impugn the decision of the Police Complaints Board which was on the authority of Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2005 ICR 329 a quasi judicial body whose decisions were immune from suit. The Chairman of the Employment Tribunal upheld the submission but permitted the Claimant to proceed with those parts of his claim that related to the decision to bring disciplinary charges against the Claimant and the decision of the Chief Constable to dismiss him. The EAT held that the proceedings of the Police Complaints Board, including its decision were immune from suit because it was quasi-judicial body and that then enactment of S37(1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 did not affect this immunity in the case of an alleged ‘whistleblower’.
Judges:
Serota QC
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0154 – 06 – 0809
Links:
Employment
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245009