Windle v West Yorkshire Police EA-2020-000406-LA
Appeal against the decision of the ET dismissing the Claimant's complaints that she had been subjected to multiple detriments on the ground that she had made protected disclosures. Appeal allowed in part.
The Claimant is a professional interpreter and translator registered on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). South Yorkshire Police (effectively the Second Respondent) is the lead force for a regional procurement collaboration agreement between South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and two other forces. The Third Respondent works for the South Yorkshire force, and is a Senior Category Manager within the regional procurement team. The Fourth Respondent, who is a police officer, is the regional specific point of contact for language services and operational lead for the West Yorkshire force (effectively the First Respondent). Capita Translation and Interpreting (Capita) took over the interpreting contract from 1 April 2019. The Claimant registered with Capita and provided services to the First and Second Respondents. The ET specifically found that, pursuant to the applicable language services framework, the forces’ vetting requirement for interpreters was NPPV3 clearance. The Claimant had very serious concerns about the use of unqualified interpreters and the effect on the investigation of crimes and the administration of justice. She claimed she had suffered various detriments as a result of raising these concerns. The ET found that in five instances the conduct complained of did not entail the Claimant being subjected to a detriment. In three, it did, but the conduct complained of was found not to have been on grounds of the protected disclosures. The Claimant appealed.
The EAT upheld the appeal in part. The appeal succeeded in respect of three of the complaints, where the ET had failed to explain why the conduct was not regarded as amounting to detrimental treatment, and a further pair of complaints, where the ET had not addressed the core of the Claimant’s case as to why the conduct was because of her protected disclosures. The decision in respect of the other complaints was Meek-compliant.
Published: 29/11/2021 11:31