Johal v. Crown Prosecution Service [2003] UKEAT 0185_03_2509 (25 September 2003)

Johal v. Crown Prosecution Service [2003] UKEAT 0185_03_2509 (25 September 2003)

The issue of whether the disclosure to The Independent was a protected act under the Race Relations Act 1976 was not placed before the Employment Tribunal for consideration. Even if it had been, the Tribunal found that the disciplinary investigation was launched due to suspected breach of confidentiality, not by reason of any protected act. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0185_03_2509
Parties
Appellant: Mr Johal; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Victimisation, Protected Disclosure, Comparators, Confidentiality
Employment Law Equality Law Racial Discrimination Victimisation Protected Disclosure Comparators Confidentiality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Johal

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure to The Independent was a protected act under Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to comparators for victimisation claim
  3. 3 Whether less favourable treatment was by reason of protected act

Ratio Decidendi

The issue of whether the disclosure to The Independent was a protected act under the Race Relations Act 1976 was not placed before the Employment Tribunal for consideration. Even if it had been, the Tribunal found that the disciplinary investigation was launched due to suspected breach of confidentiality, not by reason of any protected act. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed