Mr S Hanif v St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust: 2600656/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2600656/2023

Between

Mr S HanifClaimant

St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Record of an Attended Hearing at the Employment TribunalRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Hutchinson

Members

Miss J C Rawlins

Miss L Lowe

Mr Uduje (instructed by Counsel) for claimant

Miss Gould (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 5 August 2025

JUDGMENT

The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:

[1]The claim of direct race discrimination fails and is dismissed.

[2]The claim of direct sex discrimination fails and is dismissed.

[3]The claim of associated direct disability discrimination fails and is dismissed.

[4]The claim of harassment related to race, and sex fails and is dismissed.

[5]The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Claimant’s Article 8 Violation complaint under the Human Rights Act 1998 and that is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The Claimant presented his claim to the Tribunal on 24 March 2023. He had notified ACAS of his claim on 15 January 2023 and a certificate had been issued by ACAS on 26 February 2023.

[2]The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent since 5 August 2020 as a General Practice Speciality Trainee (GPST) and remains employed by them.

[3]The Claimant claimed direct discrimination on the grounds of his race which he describes as British Pakistani and sex and associated disability discrimination on the ground of his nephew’s condition of Lafora disease and harassment on the grounds of race and/or sex.

[4]The claims emanate from an incident in early March 2022 when the Claimant attended with his nephew the Emergency Department at Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham. The Claimant was not satisfied with the treating doctor’s care of his nephew, and they argued, and the doctor alleged the Claimant threatened her. He was subsequently placed on restricted duties for several months while the incident was investigated by the Police and his employer before the restrictions were lifted.

[5]The Claimant alleged that he would not have been treated in this way had he been a white female and the way the investigation was handled by the Respondent and the failure to investigate it properly amounted to harassment.

[6]He also claimed that the Respondent’s breached his Article 8 Right to Privacy rights Contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998.

[7]In their response the Respondent stated that they had followed their internal procedures after receiving the complaint and did not treat the Claimant any differently from the way they would have treated a white female. They deny that any of the treatment of the Claimant amounted to harassment.

The Issues

[8]It was agreed that the Tribunal should deal with the following matters: Direct Race Discrimination

The Issues

[1]Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably by:1.1 Failing to properly investigate the third-party complaint.

1.2 Imposing restrictions on the Claimant’s practice on 28 March 2022.

1.3 Maintaining those restrictions to 3 November 2022 when there were no

1.4 Issuing a letter of advice dated 3 November 2022.

1.5 Unjustly questioning the Claimant’s clinical ability, practice, or judgment on

1.6 At a meeting on 24 November 2022 unjustly refusing to expunge the letter evidence that he did not commit any wrongdoing relevant to his employment. The failure to remove the one-sided harmful allegations remain on the Claimant’s file are detrimental and could impact on career advancement and development as a doctor.

[2]If so, can the Claimant show primary facts from which the Tribunal could properly and fairly conclude that the difference in treatment was because of the Claimant’s race?

[3]If so, what is the explanation of the Respondent. Can the Respondent show a non-discriminatory reason for any proven treatment.

[4]The Tribunal will decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than someone Direct Discrimination

[5]Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourable by:5.1 Failing to properly investigate the third-party complaint.

5.2 Imposing restriction on the Claimant’s practice on 28 March 2022.

5.3 Maintaining those restrictions to 3 November 2022 when there were no

5.4 Issuing a letter of advice dated 3 November 2023.

5.5 Unjustly questioning the Claimant’s clinical ability, practice, or judgment on

5.6 At a meeting on 24 November 2022 unjustly refusing to expunge the letter evidence that he did not commit any wrongdoing. A failure to remove the one-sided harmful allegations remain on the Claimant’s file are detrimental and could impact on career advancement and development as a doctor. This is a continuing detriment.

[6]If so, can the Claimant show primary facts from which the Claimant could properly and fairly conclude that the difference in treatment was because of the Claimant’s race?

[7]If so, what is the explanation of the Respondent? Can the Respondent show a non-discriminatory reason for any proven treatment?

[8]The Tribunal will decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than someone Associated Direct Disability Discrimination

[9]Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably by:9.1 Failing to properly investigate the third-party complaint.

9.2 Imposing restrictions on the Claimant’s practice on 28 March 2022.

9.3 Maintaining those restrictions to 3 November 2022 when there were no

9.4 Issuing a letter of advice dated 3 November 2022.

9.5 Unjustly questioning the Claimant’s clinical ability, practice, or judgment on

9.6 At a meeting on 24 November 2022 unjustly refusing the expunge a letter evidence that he did not commit any wrongdoing. The failure to remove the one-sided harmful allegations remain on the Claimant’s file are detrimental and could impact on career advancement and development as a doctor. This is a continuing detriment.

[10]If so, can the Claimant show primary facts from which the Tribunal can properly and fairly conclude that the difference in treatment was because the Claimant was caring for his disabled nephew (discrimination by association).

[11]If so, what is the explanation of the Respondent. Can the Respondent show a non-discriminatory reason for any proven treatment.

[12]The Tribunal will decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than someone Harassment Related to Race/Sex

[13]Did the Respondent do the following things:13.1 Failing to properly investigate the third-party complaint.

13.2 Imposing restrictions on the Claimant’s practice on 28 March 2022.

13.3 Maintaining those restrictions to 3 November 2022 when there were no

13.4 Issuing a letter of advice dated 3 November 2022.

13.5 Unjustly questioning the Claimant’s clinical ability, practice or judgment on

13.6 At a meeting on 24 November 2022 unjustly refusing to expunge the letter evidence that he did not commit any wrongdoing. The failure to remove the one-sided harmful allegations remain on the Claimant’s file are detrimental and could impact on career advancement and development as a doctor. This is a continuing detriment.

[14]If so, was that unwanted conduct.

[15]Did it relate to race or sex?

[16]Did the conduct have the purpose of violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant?

[17]If not, did it have that effect? The Tribunal will take into account the Claimant’s perception, all the circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The Claimant’s allegation of Article 8 Violation

[18]The Claimant is a trainee medical practitioner. On or around 12 March 2022 another doctor from another hospital not employed by the Respondent made a complaint about the Claimant that he was rude and aggressive and threatened. the personal safety of the doctor. A complaint was made to the Police. The Claimant was suspended from work for almost 8 months. When he returned to work, he was issued with a letter of advice even though there was no evidence that the Claimant had posed a danger to the public or staff. The Claimant believes his career and reputation as a doctor is tarnished before it has even begun because this unsubstantiated serious allegation will remain on his record as a doctor throughout the duration of his career and it is disclosable and is likely to affect future employment opportunities. Furthermore, if there are any issues between him and colleagues or the public in the future then this unproven allegation (that he poses a potential risk of danger towards colleagues and the public) will be used against him.

[19]The Claimant brings a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 for a breach of his Article 8 Rights to private life and privacy.

[20]He says that the respondent was in breach of his rights by failing to investigate the serious allegation properly (that he says took place outside the workplace) and suspending him on no reasonable basis because there was no reliable evidence to suppose that he was a danger to staff or public. He says that the notion of private life within the meaning of

Article 8 of the Convention

is a broad concept which extends to several aspects relating to personalised identity, including a person’s physical and psychological integrity. A person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is encompassed by Article 8 as part of the right to respect their private life since a person’s reputation is part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity.

[21]For Article 8 to come into play the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and must have been carried out in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of a right to respect the private life.

[22]The attack on the Claimant’s reputation may obstruct his ability to pursue his chosen profession as doctor. This has consequential effects on the enjoyment of the right to respect his private life within the meaning of Article 8.

[23]The wrong and adverse portrayal of the Claimant’s conduct on 12 March 2022 could by the way it stigmatised him have a major impact on his personal and professional situation as well as his honour and reputation. This is a continuing. harmful detriment. Evidence 9. The Tribunal heard from the following: 1. The Claimant. 2. Professor Andrew Rowland. 3. Laura Driscoll. 10. There was an agreed bundle of documents and where we refer to page numbers it is from that bundle. 11. Despite the extent of the cross examination by both parties in this case much of the crucial facts are not really in dispute. The Claimant clearly believes that he was discriminated and harassed because of his race and sex and related to his nephew’s disability and the Respondent’s case is that they followed procedure in this case and his treatment had nothing to do with his race or sex or his nephew’s disability and that it did not amount to harassment. Much of the crucial evidence is contained in letters, emails, and messages. The Facts 12. The Claimant is a General Practice Speciality Trainee (GPST) and he was appointed to a 3 year General Practice Training Programme with Health Education England on 5 August 2020. He has a fixed term contract which commenced on that date and was due to terminate on 1 August 2023 (page 120). 13. He is British Pakistani and comes from Nottingham and studied for 7 years at the University of Leeds to obtain his medical degree which he obtained in 2016. He then worked for 2 years as a Junior Doctor and then secured a place at University College London where he studied a master’s in philosophy, politics and economics of health. He then worked as a Locum Doctor until he commenced his training with the Respondents. 14. The Respondent is a Hospital Trust providing a full range of acute and intermediate healthcare services. It is the lead employer for over 12,000 doctors in speciality training from all speciality types including GPST’s. 15. The lead employer has overall employment responsibility for the GPST’s employment by it including contracts of employment, employment checks, pay restrictions/exclusions, disciplinary matters and so on. The lead employer offers a single point of contract co-ordinating with the host organisation and NHS England. 16. Doctors in speciality training are subject to the lead employer policies and procedures. 17. Professor Andrew Rowland is the lead employer Medical Director. The Medical Director is responsible for ensuring a high quality of patient care and for leading and developing the medical workforce and performance management of doctors. 18. Laura Driscoll is employed by the Respondent as Assistant HR Business Partner. 19. In early March 2022 the Claimant’s nephew was diagnosed with a rare genetic condition known as Lafora disease. 20. He had a seizure on 11 March 2022 and an ambulance crew attended and the Claimant accompanied him to the Paediatric Emergency Department at Queens Medical Centre (QMC) at around 11.00pm. The Claimant was in attendance whilst a doctor assessed his nephew shortly after midnight on 12 March 2022. The child’s father was also there. 21. Doctor Hanif describes that he was unhappy with the doctor’s tone and manner and says she was very abrupt and rude. He accepts that the relationship quickly deteriorated during the consultation and says that the relations deteriorated to the extent that the doctor refused to talk to him because he did not have parental responsibility and because of a one-person visitor policy. 22. He describes being asked to leave having told the doctor that he would be submitting an official complaint. 23. He says that he returned to the Emergency Department at 2.15am to hand in his nephew’s phone and then spoke to the doctor again who accused him of having threatened her. He says that she said that she would ensure that he did not set foot in hospital again.

The Facts

[24]Dr Hanif did not complain immediately after the incident, but the doctor did. On 14 March 2022 the Respondent received an email from the Primary Care Dean/Deputy Post Graduate Dean of East Midlands Health Education England alerting them to a complaint by the doctor at Queens Medical Centre about the Claimant’s behaviour on 12 March 2022 when he attended hospital as a relative of a patient seeking treatment.

[25]These emails are at pages 133 – 136. The doctor in her email to the director said as follows: “Unfortunately, I have had an unsettling experience with another East Midlands trainee this evening that has led to the need for me to contact yourself, the GMC and the Police. Sagheera Hanif GMC 7525191, a GP trainee in East Midlands, attended QMC ED as a relative of a patient this evening during the course of which he was rude and increasingly verbally aggressive to myself and other staff in Childrens ED which culminated in him making threats to my personal safety and life. I thought it would be mindful to mention this to yourself as you are listed as the responsible officer as Dean of the GMC Register. I hope you do not feel this inappropriate. I have copied in Dr Khan who was Consultant in Charge of ED on this shift and aware of the situation.”

[26]The allegation was that the Claimant had been rude and aggressive, and the doctor had reported the incident both to the GMC and to the Police. Miss Driscoll notified Professor Rowland.

[27]Miss Driscoll attempted to obtain further information and in an email exchange with Mr Mohamed Khan (the consultant who had been on duty that night) on 15 – 17 March 2022, pages 141 – 142, was told that the Police had taken statements and were investigating the matter.

[28]Miss Driscoll requested a copy of the statement made by the complainant and this eventually arrived on 23 March 2022. The statement is at page 147. It states as follows: “This is the statement I gave to the nurse in charge on this evening: “Dr Hanif attended my place of work (Nottingham Childrens ED) as the relative of a patient. Throughout the course of the evening he was increasingly abusive and verbally aggressive towards staff. During my assessment of the patient he was obstructive to history taking, continually interrupted the child during the history, changed my open questions into closed questions and spoke for him and dad even when asked to allow others to speak. He left part way through the history, and I continued with the patient and his dad. After concluding the history I went to speak to Dr Hanif who was sat by the entrance to the department to thank him for the history of today’s presentation and asked him to now leave the department as dad was here and only one person is allowed with each child. He became aggressive and confrontational, accusing me of attacking him. He had a discussion with and then was asked to leave by the Consultant in Charge (Dr Khan) but later returned, telling staff on the front desk to “fuck off” when they asked why he was coming back. I approached him to ask him to leave and not to abuse staff and he came very close up to me and told me he would “take me down” that he “knew people who can sort you out” and that I would “get what is coming to you”. I asked if he was threatening me and he said he was. He then left when we told him that security were being called” I am in the process of finishing a longer statement with Police, which I can also copy to you once done – it contains no further issues but just some more information the Police have requested ie timings, physically descriptions of people involved, how situations made me feel etc. We are drafting this between myself and the PC via email as until today I have been isolating with Covid. Once its finalised I’ll send it your way. Do let me know if there is anything else you need from me.”

[29]On 24 March 2022 Miss Driscoll confirmed in an email to Nigel Scarborough, Primary Care Dean at East Midlands and others that she had spoken to Dr Hanif. The email is at pages 636 – 637. It confirmed as follows: “I have just called Dr Hanif who advised that he was unhappy with the way the Trust managed the care of his nephew, he is submitting a complaint and is going to provide us with a copy of this. He stated that he was upset and feels he probably came across as aggressive to “a White female Doctor”. He admitted he did use the word “fuck” but that he was not threatening towards the staff. He feels the other doctor has submitted this complaint because he had advised he was submitting a complaint. Dr Hanif does not feel he needs to take a period of absence at present, he is on annual leave until 6 April.”

[30]The email confirms that Professor Rowland had suggested, based on the information provided the restriction to education work from home would be necessary for the protection of colleagues. This was necessary given Dr Hanif may undertake locum work during his annual leave. The email confirms Miss Driscoll’s impression about Dr Hanif as follows: “It seems there is no insight and no acknowledgement of the potential seriousness of this concern and there will need to be an investigation. Given the email indicates Police involvement we will identify and make contact with the officer in charge of the investigation to see if they are proceeding with a criminal investigation and, if so, whether we have consent to run a MPHS investigation alongside or not.”

[31]It is noted by the Tribunal that it was the Claimant who raised the issue of race. The complainant doctor makes no mention at all of Dr Hanif’s race or sex. She was concerned about a colleague medical practitioner’s behaviour towards her and other members of staff.

[32]Miss Driscoll spoke to the Police on 28 March to request an update in relation to his case. She was told that the Police had informed her that they were trying to contact Dr Hanif but that it was proving difficult. She suggested that he should contact the Police and provided him with the details.

[33]When this information was provided to Professor Rowland in line with the Respondent’s policy for handling concerns in respect of medical and dental staffing and training Professor Rowland liaised with the Post Graduate Dean at NHS England and it was agreed that immediate action should be taken to ensure the safety of patients and colleagues of the Claimant.

[34]Professor Rowland wrote to Dr Hanif on 28 March 2022 to tell him that restrictions would be put on his practice until they knew more about the circumstances of the complaint. The letter to him is at pages 157 – 161. The letter sets out the allegations that were made against him and it confirmed that it had been made in discussion with Health Education England. The restrictions were: 34.1. He must confine his work to solely non-clinical work from home set by his Clinical and/or Educational Supervisors and/or his Training Programme Director. 34.2. He must not undertake any locum work.

[35]The letter confirmed that this would be reviewed on a regular four weekly basis.

[36]At that stage to protect Dr Hanif’s own position in case there was a Police investigation he was not inviting any comment from him about the concerns.

[37]He was asked to keep Professor Rowland aware of any correspondence he might receive from the GMC.

[38]That letter also referred to the availability of pastoral support and a link to external wellbeing support that was available.

[39]Professor Rowland had considered whether the Claimant should be suspended from work, known as an exclusion. Whilst he felt that there were reasonable and proper cause to have excluded him, he decided not to do so. That there were workable restrictions short of exclusion from work which would mitigate the risk to patients and colleagues and there was no need to exclude him entirely from work. Professor Rowland felt that this was an appropriate course of action taking into account the seriousness of the allegation until more information was obtained.

[40]The Claimant continued to receive full pay and support throughout his restricted period. Miss Driscoll updated Professor Rowland on 29 March 2022 (page 164) and notified Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust on 30 March 2022 that the Claimant’s practice was currently restricted. Dr Hanif had been due to start work with them on 6 April 2022, so they needed to be informed (pages 166 – 169).

[41]On 31 March 2022 Miss Driscoll received an email from Miss Swanwick, Clinical Director at University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust setting out the concerns they had about the Claimant’s practice whilst he was a trainee with them in palliative medicine between April and August 2021 (page 180) Miss Driscoll discussed this with Professor Rowland and they agreed that they should wait for any Police investigation to conclude before they conduct any investigation of their own. These emails are at pages 177 – 181.

[42]Miss Driscoll then had a further exchange with the Police about contacting the Claimant and he then voluntarily attended the Police for interview on 7 April 2022.

[43]Professor Rowland reviewed the Claimant’s restrictions on 21 April 2022. There was no new information since the original decision to restrict his duties and he decided that they should remain in place for a further 4 weeks. His letter is at pages 188 – 191.

[44]Miss Driscoll continued to chase the Police for updates and was told on 22 April 2022 that the Claimant had attended for his interview with the Police and denied the offence (page 197).

[45]Miss Driscoll asked Dr Hanif about the allegation from the Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust about his disposal of sharps and he explained that the only sharps he had disposed of at work belonged to his mother. The emails related to this are at pages 202 – 205.

[46]On 27 April 2022 Miss Driscoll attended a meeting to discuss an educational plan for the Claimant and his psychiatry placement, the notes are at page 180.

[47]On or around 12 May 2022 Miss Driscoll contacted Dr Hanif’s host Trust to see if there was any additional work that he could complete from home. Joanne Bailey who was Assistant HR Business Partner shared details of the educational plan which had been put in place for the Claimant and this information was shared with Professor Rowland to query whether it would be possible for the Claimant to complete work from home. Professor Rowland agreed the Claimant could undertake this work whilst on restricted practice by email on 30 May 2022 (pages 235 – 236).

[48]On 17 May 2022 Professor Rowland wrote again to the Claimant to provide the outcome of a further review of his restrictions. The letter is at pages 219 – 222. The letter refers to the “sharps” matters. The letter expressed concerns about his disposal of sharps and the accounts he had given to Miss Driscoll when questioned about that in late April 2022. At that stage there had been no developments with the Police, so he extended the restrictions on the Claimant for a further 4 weeks.

[49]Professor Rowland again reviewed the Claimant’s restrictions on 17 June 2022 (pages 249 – 253) and 19 July 2022 at pages 258 – 263. There had still been no progress with regards to the Police investigation and in Professor Rowland’s view the Police still had primacy over the matter and that they could not progress with their own investigation without explicit authorisation.

[50]It can be seen from the emails which are at pages 264 – 275 that Miss Driscoll and latterly Miss Bailey was in regular contact with the Police asking for updates about their investigation. There were considerable delays in the QMC providing information to the Police which delayed their investigation. Eventually, on 26 July 2022 PC Joshua Martin contacted Joanne Bailey to confirm that no further action would be taken because of “evidential difficulties”.

[51]Miss Bailey then contacted the complainant doctor at the QMC on 11 August 2022 and asked her to provide the Trust with a copy of the statement that she gave to the Police (page 276).

[52]On 12 August 2022 Professor Rowland wrote again to Dr Hanif (pages 283 – 287). He confirmed that he was now aware that the Police had closed the complaint down their investigation with no further action and that the restrictions would continue whilst the Trust carried out its own investigation. Professor Rowland asked the Claimant to provide him with his own account of events and that they would be asking for statements from others involved.

[53]The complainant doctor did not respond to Miss Bailey’s email until 5 September 2022. Whilst she provided the statement that she gave to the Police she did not consent to that statement being shared with the Claimant even in a redacted form (page 291 – 294). We have seen the statement which is at pages 293 – 294.

[54]Miss Bailey took advice from the Respondent’s Information Governance Department as what could be shared with the Claimant and provided Professor Rowland with a report as to where matters stood in her email of 9 September 2022 at page 332.

[55]The Claimant’s own account of the incident is at pages 304 – 312 and this was provided to Professor Rowland on 9 September 2022 within Miss Bailey’s email.

[56]Professor Rowland in his email to Joanne Bailey on 12 September 2022 set out his concerns (pages 327 – 331).

[57]Having read Dr Hanif’s statement, he had several concerns. In particular: 57.1. Whether it was appropriate to contact the mother of three children who had died from the same disease suffered by his nephew when his nephew was acutely unwell due to a seizure which could have significantly distressed the mother who in trying to intervene in the management of his nephew whether he had maintained an appropriate boundary between being the patient’s relative and being the patient’s doctor and whether he had unduly interfered with the work of the paramedic crew. 57.2. Whether reliance and advice from the mother of another patient and/or attempting to influence the paramedics and clinicians in the Emergency Department could have adversely affected the care they were able to deliver. 57.3. Whether he had appropriately respected and recognised the expertise within the Childrens Emergency Department at QMC and whether the suggested interference in the management of this patient could have compromised this patient’s care. 57.4. Whether the attempt to take over the management of his relative’s care was appropriate.

[58]The letter also goes on to express other concern about his relationship with his colleagues and whether he had acted in a threatening manner towards them. Whether Dr Hanif had insight into the inappropriateness of trying to intervene on a non-evidence basis into his nephew’s care. Also, whether he recognised that colleagues felt that he was increasingly abusive and verbally aggressive towards those colleagues including doctor’s nurses and support staff. He felt that the allegations made by the doctor were extremely serious and needed further investigation.

[59]Having reviewed the situation Professor Rowland did not consider that it included all necessary information to enable him to assess the risk if restrictions to the Claimant’s practice were to be lifted and he wrote to the Claimant on 21 September 2022 to confirm that he would be extending the restrictions on his practice for a further 4 weeks on the basis that his statement did not address concerns regarding the incident which took place in which it was alleged that he had made threats to NHS colleagues about their personal safety and used foul language towards other NHS colleagues (pages 333 – 338). He offered the Claimant a summary of the statement provided by the complainant since the complainant had not given them the appropriate consent to provide him with the full statement.

[60]On 17 October 2022 Dr Megan Smith a Barrister, consultant anaesthetist and inhouse counsel at EveryDoctor wrote to Professor Rowland with an attached statement from Dr Hanif together with a further reflection from him at pages 355 – 371. She set out a chronology of events and the response by Dr Hanif to the allegations made against him. She concluded by saying. “Both Dr Hanif and I look forward to confirmation that this matter is now closed and would be grateful if you would provide a date for him to return to his training programme without restrictions to his practice. This episode has been unspeakably traumatic and stressful for him. It has significantly adversely affected his mental health, has interfered with his training which has been unnecessarily delayed since the conclusion of the police investigation over 2.5 months ago, and has caused him financial loss I have advised Dr Hanif that there are civil and public law remedies available to him should he wish to pursue that route, he is, understandably( and very honourably in my view), keen to simply put this episode behind him and get on with his life. However, if this matter is not closed and a date for his return to work received by the end of this month, he will reconsider that position.”

[61]Professor Rowland considered this document and submissions and was then satisfied that the Claimant had sufficiently reflected on his actions and acknowledged that his frustration had taken over his emotions and exacerbated the situation on the night. Professor Rowland was now satisfied that there would be no risk to colleagues by returning the Claimant to full duties and decided to revoke the restrictions upon him on 19 October (pages 372 – 377).

[62]Professor Rowland did still have concerns about the Claimant’s clinical knowledge and was satisfied that this could be resolved as an educational matter rather than a conduct or capability one and he referred the matter to the Claimant’s Head of School Health Education England to take the matter forward.

[63]Professor Rowland wrote to the Claimant on 3 November 2022 (pages 392 – 396). This is described as a “Letter of advice” The letter provides confirmation that the Trust would manage the concerns informally by the issuing of the letter of advice to him. As a result, they would not be commissioning an investigation into these matters under the policy for handling concerns. It noted that in the Claimant’s reflections he acknowledged that the situation could have been handled more appropriately if he had managed to contain his frustration and if he had been more mindful of how this frustration was being displayed.

[64]On 24 November 2022 Dr Hanif attended a meeting with his Head of School. The tribunal was provided with a transcript of the meeting after the claimant had given evidence to us. The transcript is at pages 665-678. Health Education England set the agenda and format of the hearing. It was a meeting to address education and/or training concerns and was not an employment meeting.

[65]The meeting was conducted by Dr Layzell who was an employee of HEE. She wrote to Dr Hanif on the 17 November 2022 prior to the meeting to set out the areas that they would cover. She explained that the meeting was not about whether he had done right or wrong but about whether things could have been dealt with differently. It particularly said that the areas that they needed to cover was the treatment of status epilepticus in children and the GMC guidance around not treating friends and relatives (page413).

[66]She wrote, after the meeting, to Dr Rowland to say she had met with Dr Hanif and the educational concerns raised had been discussed and that he had returned to GP training, and she hoped he would now progress smoothly to CCT (page415).

[67]The letter of advice was to be contained in the Claimant’s confidential personal file. The Law Direct Discrimination

The Law

[68]Section 13 Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) provides: “(1) A person(a) (A) discriminates against another

(b) (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

[69]As Mr Uduje says this provides two questions for us the Tribunal: 69.1. Whether the Respondent has treated the Claimant less favourably than it treated others. 69.2. Was it because of the protected characteristic i.e. race or sex.

[70]Mr Uduje referred us to the EHRC Employment Guide and also the case of Glasgow City Council v Zafar

[1998] ICR 120

. Harassment

[71]Section 26 of the EqA provides: “(1)A person(a) (A) harasses another

(b) (B) if— (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. (4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account— (a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case;

[72]Again, Mr Uduje referred us to the EHRC’s Code of Practice on Employment 2011. Burden of Proof

[73]Section 136 EqA provides: “(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.”

[74]As Mr Uduje confirms this is a two-stage approach: 74.1. First, the Tribunal considers whether the Tribunal has found facts having assessed the totality of the evidence presented by either side and drawn any appropriate factual inferences from the evidence from which the Tribunal could potentially conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that a contravention has occurred. There must be some evidential basis from which the Tribunal could reasonably infer that there was a contravention of the act. The Tribunal can and should look at all the relevant facts and circumstances when considering this part of the burden of proof. 74.2. If the Claimant succeeds at the first stage, the burden is then shifted to the Respondent to show that a contravention did not occur.

[75]Mr Uduje then referred us to the relevant case law namely:  Efobi v Royal Mail Ltd

[2021] UKSC 33

 Igen v Wong

[2005] EWCA Civ 142

 Madarassy v Nomura International

[2007] EWCA Civ 33

[76]He also referred us to the Code of Practice on the Equality Act 2010:  EB v BA

[2006] EWCA Civ 132

 Anya v University of Oxford

[2001] IRLR 377

 Pnaiser v NHS England & Coventry City Council

[2016] IRLR 170

EAT  South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust v Lee

UKEAT/0287/17/DA

 Essex County Council v Jarrett

[2015] UKEAT 0045/15

/0411 Associative Disability Discrimination

[77]Mr Uduje referred us to the following cases:  Coleman v Attridge Law KC – 303/06/

2008 ICR 1128

 EBR Attridge LLP & Another v Coleman

[2010] ICR 242

 Thompson v London Central Bus Company Ltd

[2016] IRLR 9

 No8 Partnership v Simmons

[2024] IRLR 110

Human Rights

[78]Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that everyone has the right to respect to his private and family life and that there shall be no interference by public authority with the exercise of that right except in accordance with the law and to the extent that it is necessary in the interests of national security, public safety or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[79]The Claimant contends that Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention Rights Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 are engaged and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to interpret the Equality Act 2010 in a way which is compatible with the Convention Rights.

[80]We do indeed agree that when we interpret the Equality Act 2010 we must do so in a way which is compatible with the Convention Rights. That does not give us the jurisdiction to hear a standalone claim under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The Tribunal does not have any such jurisdiction. Our Conclusions

[81]In this case we agree with Miss Gould that the Claimant has wholly failed to satisfy us that there is any evidence that he suffered discrimination on grounds of his race, sex or the disability of his nephew or that he suffered harassment on grounds of race or sex. The case as put by the Claimant is insufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent.

[82]Furthermore, there is no evidence to support a contention that anything happened to him because of his race, sex or because of his nephew’s disability. Addressing the allegations in the issues:

[83]We are satisfied that the Respondent did not fail to investigate the complaint by the female doctor at the Queens Medical Centre. What the Respondent did was entirely appropriate. Professor Rowland through HR had been provided with information from the complainant doctor and what Dr Hanif told Miss Driscoll and these were very serious allegations. In accordance with the Trust policies and MHPS there was sufficient information to make the restrictions whilst the Police investigation was ongoing.

[84]The Respondent would probably have had grounds to exclude or suspend the Claimant but decided not to do so to allow him to continue with his educational studies.

[85]This was later relaxed after the Police had decided to take no further action.

[86]The Trust then had to consider whether to carry out their own investigation and sought the complainant doctors’ consent to disclose her statement in order that an MHPS process could be undertaken which would have included a formal investigation.

[87]This was only not possible because the complainant doctor did not consent to her statement being disclosed.

[88]After this alternative route to address the situation were considered which were appropriate. They sought the reflections of Dr Hanif on the incident which he provided in detail and then decided to deal with the matter by way of a letter of advice and educational input from Health Education England.

[89]It can be seen from our findings that we are satisfied that the Respondents and in particular Professor Rowland acted appropriately at all stages of the process and there was no failure to investigate the matter at all.

[90]There was no covert or inadequate investigation of the third-party complaint. We are satisfied that the Claimant was aware of the allegations and the nature of them. It was not appropriate for him to be shown either the original email of complaint which was provided whilst he was still under a Police investigation or the complainants statement when she did not agree to this statement being provided to the Claimant. We are satisfied that there was nothing that could be described as a covert or inadequate investigation into the complaint.

[91]The imposition of the restrictions on the Claimant’s practice on 28 March 2022 were appropriate and were undertaken with due process and with reasonable and proper cause. These were extremely serious allegations involving a threat to a colleague who was doing her job.

[92]Whilst we make no finding as to what happened on the 12 March 2022 it is not necessary for us to do so. We must consider what the allegation was and was it appropriately handled by the Respondent. We are satisfied that the Respondent’s decision to not carry out an investigation initially until the outcome of the Police investigation was proper and reasonable. Once the Police had concluded their investigation, they could not undertake their own investigation without the cooperation of the third-party complainant. Once they knew that they could not undertake that investigation they decided to deal with matters appropriately in an alternative fashion.

[93]The maintaining of those restrictions until 3 November 2022 were reasonable and we are satisfied that there were proper grounds to believe based on the allegations that the Claimant did pose a danger to colleagues.

[94]The restrictions were not maintained in full until 3 November 2022 they were relaxed following the Police’s decision to take no further action and Professor Rowland decided on 19 October 2022 having had the response from the Claimant that the remaining restrictions could be lifted.

[95]We are satisfied that it was reasonable to issue a letter of advice regarding the interpersonal matters admitted by Dr Hanif. This is not less favourable treatment. Dr Hanif says that he wanted to have a formal investigation which would have taken much longer and could potentially have had serious consequences for him.

[96]It can be seen in any event that the advice given was appropriate for a young trainee medical professional to take on board and reflect on. We note that even if an investigation had been undertaken and the allegations had been found to be unsubstantiated this would have had to be notified to Dr Hanif’s ARCP.

[97]We are satisfied that the Claimant was not unjustly questioned about his clinical ability, practice, or judgment on 17 November 2022. The questions raised by Professor Rowland were entirely reasonable and justified.

[98]It can be seen from the above that we are satisfied that the Claimant has not suffered any less favourable treatment and there is no evidence in this case that any treatment he received was because of his sex, race or because of his nephew’s disability.

[99]As to his allegation that the alleged treatment amounted to harassment, we do not find that his treatment by the Respondent amounted to unwanted conduct related to his characteristics of race or sex.

[100]The conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating his dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him. We are satisfied that the behaviour of the Respondents has been reasonable and justified.

[101]The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a standalone complaint of a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[102]We agree that everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence and that there should be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of that right except in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the Country for the prevention disorder or crime for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights of the freedom of others.

[103]We agree that we should consider his Article 8 Rights in determining his discrimination claims. In this case there has been no interference with his Article 8 Rights.

[104]The incidents that occurred with his colleague were not in private. The Claimant is a doctor, and he was in a hospital dealing with a colleague who in turn was dealing with his nephew who was her patient. That is not something in respect of his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence. He was in his workplace as a doctor and his rights have not been infringed. No one, we are satisfied, could have any expectation of privacy in this case particularly bearing in mind his professional obligations as a doctor.

[105]For these reasons all the claims fail and are dismissed.