Hepburn v Crown Prosecution Service:  EAT 24
Appeal concerning whether the tribunal had properly considered the detriments relied on by the claimant and in particular whether the tribunal had given sufficient reasons for its findings that there was no victimisation.
The claimant had worked for the respondent since 2005 a crown prosecutor, then a senior crown prosecutor. In 2017 she was absent with migraines and during that time a complaint about her work was received which her manager was instructed to make a performance issue. There followed a series of letters between the claimant and her manager setting out allegations of victimisation. Following her return to work the claimant raised a grievance that was not upheld. The ET made ‘trenchant’ findings against the claimant and dismissed her claims.
John Bowers QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, criticises the judgment for not dealing logically with the 11 detriments claimed but concludes they were entitled to take some of the detriments together as they overlapped. At  following DPP v Greenberg he goes on to state that looking at the decision as a whole and not taking passages in isolation, the reasons although unsatisfactory “do pass muster” so the appeal was refused.
Published: 01/03/2022 18:46