The Claimant worked as an immigration enforcement officer at the Home Office from 1991 to February 2022. She was dismissed for having carried out unauthorised searches on the Home Office computer system on relatives of hers, and of relatives and other parties connected to a colleague who had asked her to make some searches. Her claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed by the ET and she appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. Although the judgment of the ET did not refer to the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures it was evident that the ET had had regard to the relevant principles. There were plainly shortcomings in the investigation process, and the disciplining officer took it upon himself to clarify with the individuals whom the Claimant contended had authorised her to make certain of the searches. The Claimant and her union representative were told of the results of these prior to the disciplinary hearing. Following the disciplinary hearing the disciplining officer made further checks with two other people to satisfy himself that there was no possibility that the Claimant had indeed been duly authorised. The response from each was that there was not. The enquiries (which were not shared with the Claimant until after the decision to dismiss were taken) could only have tipped the balance in the Claimant’s favour and the ET’s finding that they did not vitiate the proceedings was upheld.