Mr R Vyas v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: 3204752/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3204752/2022

Between

Mr R VyasClaimant

The Commissioner of Police of the MetropolisRespondent

Before

Employment Judge S Shore

Members

Mr S Woodhouse

Mr J Webb

In person for claimant

Mr B Uduje (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 7 July 2025

JUDGMENT

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that: Harassment related to race (s.26 Equality Act 2010)

[1]The Tribunal makes the following decisions regarding the claimant’s claims of harassment related to race. The claims that: Case Number: 3204752/2022 2 of 5 1.1. DS Lester refused to give the claimant permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar (to be held on 8 October 2019) on 27 September 2019 fails. 1.2. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 fails. 1.3. DS Lester refused to allow the claimant to carry out exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019 fails. 1.4. DS Lester asked the claimant to supply a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 to confirm that he had an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon at St Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup fails. 1.5. DS Lester refused the claimant permission to go home early on 29 November 2019, the day of ‘The London Bridge Attacks’ (when two people were fatally stabbed at an incident in Fishmongers’ Hall) fails. 1.6. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 is dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of the claim at paragraph 1.2 above. 1.7. DI Knight told the claimant that the complaint that he had raised about DS Lester’s unfair treatment of him would not be investigated on 9 December 2019 fails. 1.8. Subjected the claimant to an investigation by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) for misconduct for not storing or updating IAMS logs in November 2019 fails. 1.9. Delayed the DPS investigation between around 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021 fails. 1.10. Placed the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 – 4 May 2022 fails. 1.11. Issued the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 under the Unsatisfactory Performance for Police Officers Process in relation to the storing and updating of IAMS case management logs fails. Direct Race Discrimination (s.13 EqA)

[2]The Tribunal makes the following decisions regarding the claimant’s claims of direct discrimination because of race. The claims that: 2.1. DS Lester refused to give the claimant permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar (to be held on 8 October 2019) on 27 September 2019 fails. Case Number: 3204752/2022 3 of 5 2.2. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 fails. 2.3. DS Lester refused to allow the claimant to carry out exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019 fails. 2.4. DS Lester asked the claimant to supply a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 to confirm that he had an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon at St Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup fails. 2.5. DS Lester refused the claimant permission to go home early on 29 November 2019, the day of ‘The London Bridge Attacks’ (when two people were fatally stabbed at an incident in Fishmongers’ Hall) fails. 2.6. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 is dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of the claim at paragraph 2.2 above. 2.7. DI Knight told the claimant that the complaint that he had raised about DS Lester’s unfair treatment of him would not be investigated on 9 December 2019 fails. 2.8. Subjected the claimant to an investigation by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) for misconduct for not storing or updating IAMS logs in November 2019 fails. 2.9. Delayed the DPS investigation between around 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021 fails. 2.10. Placed the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 – 4 May 2022 fails. 2.11. Issued the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 under the Unsatisfactory Performance for Police Officers Process in relation to the storing and updating of IAMS case management logs fails. Victimisation (s.26 EqA)

[3]The Tribunal makes the following decision relating to the claimant’s claims of victimisation. The claims that: 3.1. DS Lester refused to give the claimant permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar (to be held on 8 October 2019) on 27 September 2019 fails. 3.2. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 fails. Case Number: 3204752/2022 4 of 5 3.3. DS Lester refused to allow the claimant to carry out exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019 fails. 3.4. DS Lester asked the claimant to supply a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 to confirm that he had an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon at St Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup fails. 3.5. DS Lester refused the claimant permission to go home early on 29 November 2019, the day of ‘The London Bridge Attacks’ (when two people were fatally stabbed at an incident in Fishmongers’ Hall) fails. 3.6. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019 is dismissed upon withdrawal as a duplicate of the claim at paragraph 3.2 above. 3.7. DI Knight told the claimant that the complaint that he had raised about DS Lester’s unfair treatment of him would not be investigated on 9 December 2019 fails. 3.8. Subjected the claimant to an investigation by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) for misconduct for not storing or updating IAMS logs in November 2019 fails. 3.9. Delayed the DPS investigation between around 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021 fails. 3.10. Placed the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 – 4 May 2022 fails. 3.11. Issued the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 under the Unsatisfactory Performance for Police Officers Process in relation to the storing and updating of IAMS case management logs fails.

[4]As all the claimant’s claims have been dismissed or withdrawn, there is no requirement for the Tribunal to consider remedy. Approved by:

REASONS

ON LIABILITY Introduction and History of Proceedings

[1]The claimant has been a police officer with the respondent since 2 December 2002 (first as a police constable and then as a detective constable from around 2004/5).

[2]The claimant remains a serving officer with the respondent. Early conciliation started on 5 July 2022 and ended on 3 August 2022. The claim form was presented on 19 August 2022.

[3]All the claims arise from the time when the claimant was working in the Economic Crime Unit (ECU) at Lewisham Police Station. The claimant engaged in a range of work, much of which related to the disruption of the Case Number: 3204752/2022 2 of 32 workings of organised criminal groups and networks, meaning he had to deal with sensitive information.

Issues

[4]A List of Issues had been agreed between the partis and EJ Townley at preliminary hearings on 16 May 2023 [404-413] and 27 November 2023 [414- 417]. The first list was amended at the second preliminary hearing after EJ Townley gave the claimant leave to amend his claim by the addition of six new factual allegations that were all claimed to be direct race discrimination, and/or harassment related to race and/or victimisation. All the new allegations were alleged to have happened between 27 September 2019 and 29 November 2019.

[5]We had a prolonged discussion with the claimant, who asserted that EJ Townley had confirmed that all his claims were brought in time and were part of conduct extending over a period. The claimant’s assertion was not correct. We made that finding because: 5.1. Neither of EJ Townley’s orders indicated that any of the claimant’s claims that predated 6 April 2022 were in time or were part of conduct extending over a period or that the Employment Judge had used their discretion granted by section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 to extend time because it was just and equitable to do so. 5.2. The Issues relating to time limit points remained in the List of Issues. 5.3. It is not usual practice for a Tribunal to determine time points on discrimination matters at a preliminary hearing, as the Tribunal will usually have to hear the evidence before making a decision on time. This is because the Tribunal will usually have to consider the strength of the claims and, therefore, consider evidence, which is not appropriate at a preliminary hearing.

[6]We noted that no definitive List of Issues had been prepared and placed in the bundle. Further, paragraph 4.4.1. of the List did not properly express the protected act that the claimant relied upon in his victimisation claim. Paragraph 6 of EJ Townley’s case management order of 23 November 2023 [415] stated that the protected act was an email that the claimant sent to DS Lester on 25 September 2019. The final agreed List of Issues is as follows: 1. Time limits 1.1 Were the discrimination and victimisation complaints made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010? The Claimant lodged his claim on 19 August 2022. He contacted ACAS on 5 July 2022 and received his EC Certificate on 3 August 2022. Accordingly, claims in respect of factual allegations occurring wholly before 6 April 2022 are prima facie out of time. Case Number: 3204752/2022 3 of 32 The Tribunal will decide:1.1.1 Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates?

1.1.2 If not, was there conduct extending over a period?

1.1.3 If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the end of that period?

1.1.4 If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable? The Tribunal will decide:1.1.4.1 Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time?

1.1.4.2 In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time? 2. Harassment related to race (Equality Act 2010 section 26) 2.1. Did the respondent do the following things: 2.1.1. DS Lester refused to give the claimant permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar (to be held on 8 October 2019) on 27 September 2019. 2.1.2. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019. 2.1.3. DS Lester refused to allow the claimant to carry out exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019. 2.1.4. DS Lester asked the claimant to supply a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 to confirm that he had an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon at St Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup. 2.1.5. DS Lester refused the claimant permission to go home early on 29 November 2019, the day of ‘The London Bridge Attacks’ (when two people were fatally stabbed at an incident in Fishmongers’ Hall). 2.1.6. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019. 2.1.7. DI Knight told the claimant that the complaint that he had raised about DS Lester’s unfair treatment of him would not be investigated on 9 December 2019. Case Number: 3204752/2022 4 of 32 2.1.8. Subjected the claimant to an investigation by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) for misconduct for not storing or updating IAMS logs in November 2019. 2.1.9. Delayed the DPS investigation between around 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021. 2.1.10. Placed the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 – 4 May 2022. 2.1.11. Issued the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 under the Unsatisfactory Performance for Police Officers Process in relation to the storing and updating of IAMS case management logs. 2.2. If so, was that unwanted conduct? 2.3. Did it relate to race? 2.4. 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? 2.5. If not, did it have that effect? The Tribunal will take into account the Claimant’s perception, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. 3. Direct race discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section

[13]3.1. The protected characteristic is one of race. The claimant’s race is British Indian, and he compares himself with hypothetical police officers who do not share that same protected characteristic. 3.2. Did the respondent do the following things: 3.2.1. DS Lester refused to give the claimant permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar (to be held on 8 October 2019) on 27 September 2019. 3.2.2. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019. 3.2.3. DS Lester refused to allow the claimant to carry out exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019. 3.2.4. DS Lester asked the claimant to supply a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 to confirm that he had an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon at St Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup. Case Number: 3204752/2022 5 of 32 3.2.5. DS Lester refused the claimant permission to go home early on 29 November 2019, the day of ‘The London Bridge Attacks’ (when two people were fatally stabbed at an incident in Fishmongers’ Hall). 3.2.6. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019. 3.2.7. DI Knight told the claimant that the complaint that he had raised about DS Lester’s unfair treatment of him would not be investigated on 9 December 2019. 3.2.8. Subjected the claimant to an investigation by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) for misconduct for not storing or updating IAMS logs in November 2019. 3.2.9. Delayed the DPS investigation between around 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021. 3.2.10. Placed the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 – 4 May 2022. 3.2.11. Issued the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 under the Unsatisfactory Performance for Police Officers Process in relation to the storing and updating of IAMS case management logs. 3.3. Was that less favourable treatment? The Tribunal will decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than someone else was treated. There must be no material difference between their circumstances and the Claimant’s. If there was nobody in the same circumstances as the claimant, the Tribunal will decide whether he was treated worse than someone else would have been treated. The claimant has not named anyone in particular who he says was treated better than he was. 3.4. If so, was it because of race? 4. Victimisation (Equality Act 2010 section 27) 4.1. Did the Claimant do a protected act as follows: 4.1.1. Send an email to DS Lester at 7:39pm on 25 September 2019 [30- 31 WB] in which he made allegations of race discrimination? Case Number: 3204752/2022 6 of 32 4.2. Did the Respondent believe that the Claimant had done or might do a protected act, in that he raised complaints about unfairness and racial discrimination with DS Lester on 25 September 2019? 4.3. Did the Respondent do the following things: 4.3.1. DS Lester refused to give the claimant permission to attend the World Mental Health Seminar (to be held on 8 October 2019) on 27 September 2019. 4.3.2. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019. 4.3.3. DS Lester refused to allow the claimant to carry out exercise as recommended by Occupational Health on 12 November 2019. 4.3.4. DS Lester asked the claimant to supply a hospital letter on 19 November 2019 to confirm that he had an appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon at St Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup. 4.3.5. DS Lester refused the claimant permission to go home early on 29 November 2019, the day of ‘The London Bridge Attacks’ (when two people were fatally stabbed at an incident in Fishmongers’ Hall). 4.3.6. DS Lester issued words of advice to the claimant for not updating the IAMS logs on 7 November 2019. 4.3.7. DI Knight told the claimant that the complaint that he had raised about DS Lester’s unfair treatment of him would not be investigated on 9 December 2019. 4.3.8. Subjected the claimant to an investigation by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) for misconduct for not storing or updating IAMS logs in November 2019. 4.3.9. Delayed the DPS investigation between around 18 January 2020 and 23 January 2021. 4.3.10. Placed the claimant on restricted duties during the DPS investigation from 18 January 2020 – 4 May 2022. 4.3.11. Issued the claimant with a written improvement notice on 7 March 2022 under the Unsatisfactory Performance for Police Officers Process in relation to the storing and updating of IAMS case management logs. 4.4. By doing so, did it subject the Claimant to a detriment? 4.5. If so, was it because the Claimant did a protected act? Case Number: 3204752/2022 7 of 32 4.6. Was it because the Respondent believed the claimant had done, or might do, a protected act? 5. Remedy for discrimination or victimisation 5.1. Should the Tribunal make a recommendation that the Respondent take steps to reduce any adverse effect on the claimant? What should it recommend? 5.2. What financial losses has the discrimination caused the Claimant? 5.3. Has the Claimant taken reasonable steps to replace lost earnings, for example by looking for another job or applying for a promotion? 5.4. If not, for what period of loss should the Claimant be compensated? 5.5. What injury to feelings has the discrimination caused the Claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that? 5.6. Has the discrimination caused the Claimant personal injury and how much compensation should be awarded for that? 5.7. Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply? 5.8. Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it? 5.9. If so, is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant? 5.10.By what proportion, up to 25%? 5.11.Should interest be awarded? How much? 7. As we did not find in favour of the claimant on any of his claims, we do not need to determine remedy. Law 8. The statutory law relating to the claimant’s claims of discrimination is contained in the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). The relevant sections of the EqA were sections 13 (direct discrimination); 26 (harassment), 27 (victimisation), 123 (time limits) and 136 (burden of proof). The relevant provisions are set out here: 13. Direct discrimination Case Number: 3204752/2022 8 of 32 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. If the protected characteristic is disability, and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B. The relevant protected characteristics are— (a) age; (b) disability;

(d) race

(e) religion or belief;

(f) sex;

(g) sexual orientation. 26. Prohibited conduct (Harassment) A person (A) harasses another (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. In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to, each of the following must be taken into account— (a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. 27 Victimisation (1) A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because— (a)B does a protected act, or (b)A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act. Case Number: 3204752/2022 9 of 32 (2) Each of the following is a protected act— (a) bringing proceedings under this Act; (b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act; (c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act; (d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act. (3) Giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the evidence or information is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith. (4) This section applies only where the person subjected to a detriment is an individual. (5) The reference to contravening this Act includes a reference to committing a breach of an equality clause or rule. 123. Time limits (1) Subject to sections 140A and 140B proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of— (a) the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or (b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. (2) Proceedings may not be brought in reliance on section 121(1) after the end of— (a) the period of 6 months starting with the date of the act to which the proceedings relate, or (b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. (3) For the purposes of this section— (a) conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period; (b) failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it. Case Number: 3204752/2022 10 of 32 (4) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person (P) is to be taken to decide on failure to do something— (a) when P does an act inconsistent with doing it, or (b) if P does no inconsistent act, on the expiry of the period in which P might reasonably have been expected to do it. 136. Burden of proof (1) This section applies to any proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act. (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. (4) The reference to a contravention of this Act includes a reference to a breach of an equality clause or rule. (5) This section does not apply to proceedings for an offence under this Act. (6) A reference to the court includes a reference to— (a) an employment tribunal… 9. We find the submissions on the relevant law in Mr Uduje’s closing submissions to be correct. The approach to the burden of proof is done in two stages. The first stage is whether the Tribunal has found facts, having assessed the totality of the evidence from both sides and drawn any appropriate factual inferences from that evidence from which it could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 had occurred. 10. It is insufficient for a claimant to show only that the treatment complained of 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 test. 11. If the claimant succeeds in the first leg of the test, the burden of proof switches to the respondent to show that the contravention of the Equality Act 29010 did not occur. We followed the guidance in Efobi v Royal Mail

[2021] UKSC 33

, Igen v Wong

[2005] EWCA Civ 142

, and Madarassay v Nomura International

[2007] EWCA Civ 33

. 12. We followed the guidance in Essex County Council v Jarrett

[2015] UKEAT 0045/15

/0411 and considered each allegation separately. Case Number: 3204752/2022 11 of 32 13. On the issues of time limits, we applied the guidance in the Court of Appeal case of Aziz v FDA

[2010] EWCA Civ 304

. Housekeeping and Hearing Day 1

Law

[14]We started the hearing at 2:00pm on the first scheduled day, 14 April 2025. We had finished our reading of the papers in the morning and were ready to conduct housekeeping and to start hearing evidence. We had read:14.1 A joint bundle of indexed documents of 427 pages. If we refer to pages in this bundle, the page number(s) will be in square brackets (e.g. [43]).

14.2 A bundle of witness statements and indexed associated documents that ran to 551 pages (the Witness Bundle). If we refer to pages in this bundle, the page number(s) will be in square brackets with the prefix WB (e.g. [WB 43]). The statements were from:14.2.1 Travis King, a Police Constable with the respondent, who is also a Grievance Assessor and dealt with the claimant’s grievance submitted on 17 January 2022 [WB 4-7];

14.2.2 Nigel Shuttleworth, a Detective Inspector with the respondent, who reviewed the Written Improvement Notice (WIN) that the claimant was given after he went through an Unsatisfactory Performance Process (UPP) in April 2022 [WB 8-10];

14.2.3 Alan Richens, a Detective Constable with the respondent, who completed the investigation into the claimant’s conduct [WB11-13];

14.2.4 Nichola Lester, a Detective Inspector with the respondent, who was the claimant’s Line Manager at the ECU at Lewisham [WB14-22]; and

14.2.5 Ronald Vyas (the claimant), a Detective Constable with the respondent [WB 23-30].

14.3 A Cast List, Key Reading List, Chronology and Suggested Timetable.

[15]We were also provided with:15.1 A list and copies of documents with an index provided by the claimant together with a further copy of his witness statement. There were 529 pages of documents, most of which were included in the main bundle; and Case Number: 3204752/2022 12 of 32

15.2 A witness statement dated 8 April 2025 from Emma Knight that was the subject of an application by the respondent.

[16]The claimant was unrepresented. We reminded him that the Tribunal operates on a set of Rules. Rule 3 sets out the overriding objective of the Tribunal Rules (their main purpose), which is to deal with cases justly and fairly. It is reproduced here: Overriding objective 3.—(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly.

(2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable— (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, (b) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, (c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings, (d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and (e) saving expense.

(3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it— (a) exercises any power under these Rules, or (b) interprets any rule or practice direction.

(4) The parties and their representatives must— (a) assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective, and (b) co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal.

[17]We discussed the timetable for the case. EJ Townley had set out a timetable in the first preliminary hearing that we intended to adhere to. That envisaged the claimant giving evidence on the first afternoon and second morning. The respondent’s witnesses would give evidence on the second afternoon and most of the third day. Closing submissions would be made on the third afternoon and the Tribunal would make its decision on liability, deliver its Judgment and Reasons orally, and deal with remedy on the fourth day. This was an optimistic timetable, but we felt it was achievable. We indicated that the least we would achieve would be hearing the evidence and closing Case Number: 3204752/2022 13 of 32 submissions and starting our deliberations on liability by the end of the fourth day.

[18]We then dealt with the List of Issues and finalised it. The respondent had produced a consolidated List of Issues that had not been sent to the Tribunal. We were assured that it dealt with both preliminary hearings. We were sent the List but did not address the matters arising from it until the second morning.

[19]We should note that the claimant attended alone. Neither of the individuals who had provided witness statements (DC Kaleem Gurmani [WB 181-185] and DS Dhaval Bhatt [WB 551-553]) that appeared in the claimant’s documents attended. The two witnesses’ statements were not in the statements bundle. The claimant’s own statement said this about DC Gurmani’s statement (para 34): “I had a meeting with DC Kaleem Gurmani who provided a statement stating that he resigned from MPS because he was bullied by DS Lester and DI Knight.”

[20]At paragraph 35 of his witness statement, the claimant stated that, “DS Dhaval Bhatt provided a reference letter.” In answer to cross-examination questions, the claimant said that DS Bhatt had declined to appear as a witness for personal reasons that do not need to be explained in this Judgment.

[21]The claimant did not indicate on the first day that DC Gurami intended to appear as a witness.

[22]We then dealt with the application to admit the witness statement of DI Emma Knight. The claimant had no objection to her statement being admitted in evidence and we considered that it would assist us determine the Issues in the case.

[23]We asked Mr Vyas and Mr Uduje if they had any other preliminary matters. Neither did, so we heard the claimant’s evidence.

[24]The claimant gave evidence on oath and adopted his witness statement [WB 23-29] that consisted of forty-one paragraphs as his evidence in chief.

[25]The claimant then raised a question about a document in his bundle of documents – document 29 – a Notice of Decision to Refer an Allegation to a Misconduct Meeting – in respect of a DC in the ECU dated 18 November 2022. This document was not in the main bundle or the witness bundle and Mr Uduje said that it had not been disclosed to the respondent. We read the document and determined that it was not relevant to the matters that we had to determine as there were no facts referred to in the document that related to Mr Vyas’ case.

[26]We made it clear to the claimant that this hearing was not a holistic investigation by the Tribunal into whether the respondent was an institutionally racist organisation. It was an enquiry into the List of Issues to determine if this Case Number: 3204752/2022 14 of 32 claimant was subjected to harassment and direct discrimination related to or because of his race and whether he was victimised because he made allegations of racism in an email date 25 September 2019.

[27]Mr Uduje began his cross examination at 2:25pm and continued with breaks until 4:25pm when we broke for the day. Before every break and at the end of the day, we reminded the claimant that he could not speak to anyone about the case during the breaks. We gave every other witness similar advice when relevant.

[28]When the claimant was answering cross-examination questions, it was noticed that the third factual allegation was repeat of the sixth factual allegation. The claimant withdrew the sixth allegation, and it is dismissed.

[29]During Mr Uduje’s cross-examination, the claimant was asked about exercises he said he had been advised to do by Occupational Health to assist his recovery from a shoulder injury. The questions related to the third factual allegation in the List of Issues and was included as a claim of direct discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. There were no documents from Occupational Health relating to advice to the claimant or the respondent about the exercises in any bundle.

[30]The claimant said he had documents at home and would send them in. The claimant sent in a series of emails to the Tribunal at 9:57am on the second morning. These were emails from the claimant to Occupational Health and back between 18 November 2019 and 28 November 2019.

[31]Overnight, we checked the List of Issues produced by the respondent against the two case management orders of EJ Townley and found that paragraph 4.1.1., which was the detail of the protected act by the clamant in his victimisation claim, was not correct, as it did not reflect paragraph 6 of EJ Townley’s case management order of 23 November 2023. The single protected act contended for was the claimant’s email to DS Lester of 25 September 2019. The List of Issues should reflect that. Day 2

[32]We started the second day of the hearing at 10:05am. As a preliminary point, we addressed the List of Issues. We advised the parties that paragraph 4.1.1. of the List produced by the respondent was incorrect and advised them of the replacement paragraph. I mistakenly advised the parties that the change meant that several of the claimant’s claims of detriment because he did a protected act appeared to be out of time because the detriment pe-dated the protected act. After a discussion with my colleagues at lunchtime, I advised the parties of my mistake and apologised.

[33]We admitted the additional documents about the claimant’s shoulder injury to the bundle, although the claimant had failed to send copies to the respondent. We arranged for copies to be forwarded to the respondent’s solicitor. Case Number: 3204752/2022 15 of 32

[34]The claimant raised a question about the status of the hearing. He asked if it was a private or public hearing. We indicated that it was a public hearing. The claimant advised that the panel on the hearing room door stated it was a private hearing. We assured the claimant that this was an error and switched the panel on the door to read “Public Hearing.”

[35]The claimant then raised a question about a potential witness; Kaleem Gurami. Mr Gurami was a former colleague of the claimant’s in Team 1 of the ECU team at Lewisham under DS Lester. A statement from DC Gurmani was in the witness statement bundle as part of the attached documents [WB 181-185]. However, it had not been exchanged as part of witness statement exchange.

[36]The claimant advised that the witness was due to fly abroad on the morning of the third day and asked if DC Gurmani could give evidence after he returned from holiday. The witness had not attended on the first day and had not attended on the second day. We refused the application because:36.1 It had been made so late in the hearing. The claimant had not mentioned that he wanted to call DC Gurami on the first day.

36.2 Having read the statement, it added nothing to the claimant’s claim. It was mainly about DC Gurami’s allegations about how he had been treated and made a fleeting reference to the claimant.

36.3 The application would require a further adjournment to the case.

36.4 The claimant had opposed the respondent’s application to postpone this hearing.

36.5 It was already six years since the earliest of the claimant’s allegations.

36.6 It was unfair to the parties waiting for a hearing date to have to wait even longer because the claimant could not arrange for his witness to attend.

hearing.

[37]We read the witness statement but can give it little weight because its author did not attend.

[38]We recommenced the cross-examination of the claimant at 10:19am. We took a break of 20 minutes at 11:50am to enable Mr Uduje to read the documents about his shoulder injury submitted by the claimant. Mr Uduje continued his cross-examination until 12:30pm. The Tribunal then asked questions until 12:40pm. Mr Uduje indicated that he would be calling DI Lester as the respondent’s first witness, followed by DI Knight, DS Richens, DC King, and DI Shuttleworth. We broke for lunch at 12:45pm.

[39]On the resumption at 1:45pm, the claimant questioned whether the respondent’s witnesses could all remain in the room whilst their colleagues gave evidence. We assured him that they could. Case Number: 3204752/2022 16 of 32

[40]Nichola Lester gave evidence on oath and adopted a witness statement that she signed and dated at the witness table that consisted of nine pages and forty-one paragraphs [WB 14-22]. She was a Detective Sergeant at the time of the events that this case is about but has since been promoted to Detective Inspector.

[41]Mr Uduje asked Inspector Lester some supplementary questions that dealt with evidence that the claimant had given in answer to cross-examination questions until 2:06pm.

[42]The claimant then began his cross-examination of DI Lester and asked a few introductory questions. He then asked the claimant about her “witness statement” and took her to page 99 of the main bundle. This was a statement that the witness had made on 2 September 2020 as part of the respondent’s investigation into the claimant’s conduct around his completion of IAMS logs.

[43]The claimant then stated that he had never seen the 41-paragraph statement that DI Lester had signed at the table before.

[44]We then engaged in a lengthy discussion about what the claimant had or had not received. The respondent’s solicitor produced his laptop that had an email on it dated 19 January 2024 addressed to the claimant at the address that he confirmed was correct. Attached to the email were the hearing bundle and the witness bundle that included DI Lester’s statement that she had signed.

[45]We find that the claimant was sent all the witnesses’ statements (other than the statement of DI Knight) by 19 January 2024 at the latest. We also find that the claimant was sent the witness bundle again on 5 November 2024. The claimant was unable to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why or how he had not seen DI Lester’s witness statement before when he did not allege that he had not seen those of DC King, DI Shuttleworth, or DS Richens. He had not brought his laptop with him.

[46]We considered the situation until 2:39pm and decided to end the hearing for the day to enable the claimant to read the witness statement and prepare his cross-examination. We had to bear in mind the timetable. We indicated that we wished to finish the respondent’s evidence and hear closing submissions by the end of day 3. The claimant said he would need more time. We gave a firm steer that more time was unlikely to be given for the evidence.

[47]We ended the hearing for the day at 3:00pm. Day 3

[48]At 10:49pm on the evening of the second day, the claimant sent an email to the Tribunal to which four documents were attached:48.1 A Word document titled “DPS-Raising Concerns Guidance.docx”. Case Number: 3204752/2022 17 of 32

48.2 A png file titled “Lewisham Officers.png”.

48.3 A png titled “Lewisham_Duty-w-c-7 th OCT2019.png”.

48.4 A Word document titled “S-DRIVE ISSUES.docx.”.

[49]The email was not copied to the respondent and there was no indication of what the documents were or why they had been submitted.

[50]At 8:29am on the third morning, the claimant sent another email to the Tribunal that was from the claimant’s work email account and was not copied to the respondent. The email contained:50.1 Four Excel files that were of ECU investigations that the claimant had conducted.

50.2 A Word document titled “1-OST-review dates.docx.”

[51]We received the emails at 9:52am and 9:54am respectively. We asked our Clerk to print and copy the documents and give a set to Mr Uduje. We asked the Clerk to indicate to the parties that we would start at 10:15am. We actually started at 10:35am.

[52]The claimant said he had failed to send the documents to the respondent because he was working late and forgot. He wished all the documents to be added to the bundle.

[53]We asked the claimant why he had submitted the Excel files in unredacted format, as they contained personal details of persons who had been under criminal investigation. His response was that the investigations had finished. We were uncomfortable at having this information. We asked the claimant why he had submitted the documents. He said that it was evidence that DS Lester could see her supervision notes on the claimant’s files. One if the allegations about the claimant’s conduct that the respondent had made was that the way the claimant saved case files deleted DS Lester’s supervision notes.

[54]The claimant confirmed that he had created the Word document “1-OSTreview_dates.docx” overnight. It was a list of his various OH and medical appointments, mostly in 2016 and 2017.

[55]The Word document “DPS- Raising Concerns Guidance.docx” was copied from the DPS website and showed officers how to make a complaint and what would happen.

[56]The two png files were pictures of the rotas for the ECU at Lewisham and the rota for Team 1 on week commencing 7 October 2019. Case Number: 3204752/2022 18 of 32

[57]The Word document “S-Drive Issues.docx.” was several emails stitched together from 5 June 2019 to 1 November 2019 that discussed the IT system in general and the S-Drive in particular.

[58]Mr Uduje objected to any of the documents being admitted. He pointed out how long the case had been going on and the unsatisfactory submission of documents so late in the hearing, after the claimant had been cross-examined. It was submitted that the documents sought to bolster the claimant’s evidence that had been given the previous day. The documents did not address the Issues in the case and, if admitted, would require further investigation and, potentially, the interviewing of existing and new witnesses. By not copying in the respondent, it had been denied the opportunity to prepare.

[59]We were asked to note that the claimant had a Police Federation representative and had seen the respondent’s amended ET3 that set out its case in clear terms.

[60]We took a break to make our decision on the claimant’s application to add the documents from 11:10am to 11:20am. On our return, we advised the parties that we had decided to refuse the applications in respect of all documents except the email concerning the S-Drive dated 1 November 2019. We refused the others for the reasons set out by Mr Uduje and the fact that we could not see how they assisted us to determine the issues in the case. The document that the claimant had produced for the hearing was, simply, his attempt to bolster the evidence he had given on the previous day. The Excel files did not assist us as DI Lester’s evidence in chief was that she could access her supervision notes after the IT department had reset the IT system, so that was not in dispute. The png files were not capable of interpretation. The claimant tried to explain their relevance, but we could not see how they would assist us to make our decision.

[61]The Guidance from DPS may have been relevant, but the clamant had not referenced it in his evidence in chief. The only email that was relevant to the claim was the one dated 1 November 2019.

[62]The cross-examination of DI Lester restarted at 11:23am and continued until 1:08pm with breaks. Mr Webb asked the witness some questions and there was no re-examination. The witness ended her evidence at 1:15pm, when we took lunch. She was released with the agreement of the claimant. Before the lunch break, Mr Uduje indicated that he would be calling DI Shuttleworth and PC King as his next two witnesses, as neither would be available on the following day.

[63]On the resumption at 2:00pm, Nigel Shuttleworth gave evidence on oath and adopted his witness statement dated 15 December 2023 as his evidence in chief. Mr Vyas cross-examined the witness until 2:24pm. The Tribunal had no questions for the witness and there was no re-examination. The witness was released with the agreement of the claimant. Case Number: 3204752/2022 19 of 32

[64]Travis King gave evidence on oath and adopted his witness statement dated 8 December 2023 as his evidence in chief. Mr Vyas cross-examined the witness until 2:45pm. The Tribunal had no questions for the witness and there was no re-examination. The witness was released with the agreement of the claimant.

[65]We took a break from 2:45pm to 2:49pm and on the resumption, Emma Knight gave evidence on oath and adopted her witness statement dated 8 April 2025 as her evidence in chief. Mr Vyas cross-examined the witness until 3:55pm. There were no questions from the Tribunal and no re-examination. The witness was released with the agreement of the claimant. We took a break until 4:00pm.

[66]On the resumption, Alan Richens gave evidence on oath and adopted his witness statement dated 1 January 2024 as his evidence in chief. He was cross-examined by Mr Vyas until 4:26pm. Mr Woodhouse asked the witness some questions until 4:28pm and Mr Uduje asked some re-examination questions until 4:33pm. The witness was released with the agreement of the claimant.

[67]We ordered the parties to file and exchange written submissions by 9:00am on the fourth day. We received the respondent’s submissions at 8:59am. We had not received the claimant’s submissions by 9:20am, so we asked our clerk to speak to the claimant, who was in the waiting room. The claimant said he was typing up his submissions and would deliver them orally.

[68]We started the hearing at 10:00am. Mr Uduje spoke to his written submissions until 10:35am. We then took a break until 10:45am. Mr Vyas delivered his oral submissions from 10:45am to 11:23am.

[69]We gave Mr Uduje the opportunity to respond. He made three short points, and we ended the hearing at 11:28am. We indicated to the parties that we would have a preliminary discussion and advise them if we were able to deliver an oral Judgement and Reasons on the day or whether we were going to reserve the decision by 12:00pm. At 12:00pm we asked our clerk to advise the parties that we would deliver an oral decision at 3:00pm, which we did.

[70]We delivered our oral Judgment and Reasons dismissing all the claimant’s claims. He requested Written Reasons on 29 April 2025. The preparation of the Written Reasons has been delayed by a period of illness. I apologise to the parties, the representatives, and my colleagues for the delay. Findings of Fact Preliminary Comments

Findings of Fact

[71]All findings of fact were made on the balance of probabilities. If a matter was in dispute, we will set out the reasons why we decided to prefer one party’s case over the other. If there was no dispute over a matter, we will either record Case Number: 3204752/2022 20 of 32 that with the finding or make no comment as to the reason that a particular finding was made. We have not dealt with every single matter that was raised in evidence or the documents. We have only dealt with matters that we found relevant to the issues we have had to determine. We have dealt with the case based on the documents and evidence produced to us and the claim as set out in the List of Issues.

[72]The factual nexus of the individual elements of this case are closely interwoven. The claimant relies on the facts of incidents which are the basis of multiple heads of claim. We have set out our findings of fact in the order in which the claims appear in the List of Issues. The claimant has made the same allegations of fact and detriment under his claims of direct race discrimination; harassment related to race; and victimisation.

[73]It is rare for a witness to be entirely not credible or unreliable in their evidence. Similarly, it is unusual for a witness to be entirely credible. We have made no general findings that any witness was either entirely credible, or entirely not credible. Where we have made findings that one witness was more credible than another on a particular point, we will explain why we made the finding. Undisputed Facts

[74]We should record as a preliminary finding that several relevant facts were not disputed, not challenged, or actually agreed by the parties. These were:74.1 The first respondent is a large police force.

74.2 The claimant has been and remains employed by the respondent police officer since 2 December 2002 (first as a police constable and then as a detective constable from around 2004/5).

74.3 Early conciliation started on 5 July 2022 and ended on 3 August 2022. The claim form was presented on 19 August 2022.

74.4 All the claims arise from the time when the claimant was working in the Economic Crime Unity (ECU) at Lewisham Police Station. The claimant engaged in a range of work, much of which related to the disruption of the workings of organised criminal groups and networks, meaning he had to deal with sensitive information. At all times relevant to this case, the claimant reported to DS Lester (as she was then). DS Lester reported to DI Knight.

74.5 To perform his role, the claimant had access to several investigative tools, including Integrated Asset Management Solution (IAMS), an investigative management tool used to assist financial investigators in large investigations. It was agreed that IAMS could be used in isolation or in conjunction with other investigation tools. No policy existed for the use of IAMS because it was a database tool like many others and its usage is subject to management controls. It is down to the officer Case Number: 3204752/2022 21 of 32 in command of the case (OIC) of a particular investigation as to whether the IAMS tool is used on a particular case.

74.6 The IAMS software produced logs that were stored on MS Excel folders. The folders should have been stored on the shared S Drive that is only accessible by staff within the Economic Crime Unit. This exclusivity of access enabled supervision to be conducted and enabled officers to access files if the colleague who had been working on the file was unavailable or further work had to be carried out. It was agreed that a supervising officer, such as DS Lester, could review work on the IAMS log and record the supervision points on the file.

74.7 The claimant admitted in an investigation conducted by PC Richens that he stored confidential information on his Home H drive rather than the specified secure S drive. The respondent asserts effect of moving electronic files from the H drive to the S drive is that the supervision logs were deleted, so no record of supervision notes made by supervisors were preserved. DS Lester, the claimant’s line manager in the ECU, raised the claimant’s method of saving files to his H drive as an issue with the claimant as a conduct matter in November 2019.

74.8 A DPS conduct investigation was then undertaken by three officers. Two left the respondent’s service before the investigation was completed. The investigation was completed by DS Alan Richens, who met with various witnesses. During the investigation, the claimant admitted that he stored sensitive files on his H drive rather than on the secure S drive.

74.9 The misconduct findings were published on 17 November 2021 with a finding that the claimant had ‘no case to answer’ in terms of conduct due to the delay in completing the investigation but finding that the claimant was not performing his role to a satisfactory standard and that he should be dealt with under the respondent’s Performance Management Process. The claimant was placed on a written improvement notice (WIN) by DS Lester. He appealed and the notice was overturned by DI Shuttleworth.

74.10 During the conduct investigation the claimant was placed on restricted duties and was not permitted to apply for any other jobs or promotion boards. He was also temporary assigned to the International Assistance Unit (IAU), which sits under the same operational command as the ECU. The claimant says that the delay caused him considerable stress, missing out on the opportunity to apply for promotion. Points of Dispute General Points Case Number: 3204752/2022 22 of 32

[75]As all three heads of claim relate to the same eleven allegations of facts, we will deal with the allegations of fact in the order that they appear in the list of Issues (including allegation 6, which is a duplicate of allegation 2 and which has been withdrawn). We will then consider each of the factual allegations against the three heads of claim. We will deal with harassment first, as it cannot be a detriment under a direct discrimination claim. We will then deal with the direct discrimination claim, if we find that there was no harassment. We will finally address victimisation.

[76]After finding the facts on the allegations, we will then address the time points in the case.

[77]In respect of the victimisation claim, the respondent has never disputed that the claimant’s email to DS Lester dated 25 September 2019 was a protected act, so we have made a finding that the claimant did a protected act on that date.

[78]The claimant referred us to the Baroness Casey Review Final Report (March 2023) (“the Report”) [WB 186-548] and a letter from the respondent to Baroness Casey dated 17 October 2023 (“the Letter”) [WB 549-550] in his closing submissions. We took Mr Vyas’ submissions as a request that we admit the two documents as evidence that the clamant could use to switch the burden of proof to the respondent. We have considered the submission carefully. We find that the Report and the Letter should be considered as part of our assessment of whether the burden of proof switches under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010 by deciding whether, “…there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that [the respondent] contravened the provision concerned.”

[79]We find that both documents can be included in the assessment but that they are not determinative of an assessment involving this respondent in every case in which they are the respondent. All cases are determined by their own facts.

[80]We also find that the claimant failed to show facts from which we could conclude in the absence of explanation that DS Lester had a “grudge or misunderstanding” with the claimant because of historic matters earlier in their careers. We make that finding because:80.1 The claimant’s evidence in chief was weak and lacked detail;

80.2 The claimant’s oral evidence was vague;

80.3 The claimant’s assertion that he had supervised DS Lester earlier in her career was only mentioned in cross-examination and was less credible than DS Lester’s rebuttal evidence. The Allegations 2.1.1. Case Number: 3204752/2022 23 of 32

[81]We find that it was not disputed that DS Lester refused to give the claimant permission to attend a World Mental Health Seminar to be held on 8 October 2019 on 27 September 2019.

[82]We find that DS Lester’s evidence about her knowledge of the claimant’s medical conditions was credible. Specifically, we find that:82.1 DS Lester was aware that the claimant had suffered a shoulder injury in 2016;

82.2 She was aware that the claimant had undergone treatment for the injury;

82.3 On handover from her predecessor, DS Jackson, DS Lester was told that the claimant was fully active for duty; and

82.4 DS Lester was not aware of the claimant’s history of mental ill health.

[83]We find that the claimant had not allowed an OH report into his health to be disclosed to the respondent.

[84]We find that there was no obligation or reason why DS Lester should have made investigations into the claimant’s mental health. We were provided with no medical evidence relating to the claimant’s mental health in this Tribunal.

[85]We find that the claimant demonstrated no substantive understanding of how DS Lester organised the work of her 4 teams at Lewisham. We preferred DS Lester’s evidence, which was internally consistent and more likely than the claimant’s supposition about how much work the ECU at Lewisham did and what officers were available on the day in question. We find:85.1 It was DS Lester’s responsibility to ensure her 4 teams had enough staff to cover their duties;

85.2 It was not challenged that ECU at Lewisham was never had a full complement of officers;

85.3 On the week in question, Team 1 (the claimant’s team) were on core duty, which required it to be able to deal with the possibility of dealing with prisoners.

85.4 The claimant did not request to attend the seminar, he simply told DS Lester he was going [387];

85.5 DS Lester was not at work on the day of the seminar, so had to appoint one of the DCs to act up;

85.6 The claimant and PC Bold (a White officer) were both refused permission to attend events in the week commencing 7 October [390]. Case Number: 3204752/2022 24 of 32

[86]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant.

[87]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not related to race. 2.1.2.

[88]We find that DS Lester emailed the claimant on 6 November 2019 [167-169]. We find that this email was entirely reasonable and justified given the claimant’s history. We find that DS Lester had responsibility for supervising the claimant’s work. This was never disputed.

[89]We find that DS Lester had discussed the claimant’s use of the H and S drives with him previously because his practice of storing work on his H drive and then transferring it to the shared S drive had the effect of deleting the supervision notes that DS Lester put on the files.

[90]We find that claimant’s repeated focus on the suggestion that another officer may have deleted things from his files is simply incredible. The claimant’s assertion that he had no reason to delete information from his files illustrated his lack of understanding as to what the problem was.

[91]We found DS Lester’s evidence to be credible on the history of the claimant’s use of the S drive. We also found her evidence credible on the email of 1 November 2019 about the S drive from Mr Azariah. We accept that old folders could continue to be used with the S drive, but that there were issues using new folders because of capacity issues on the system.

[92]We find the claimant’s evidence on this matter to be vague and inconsistent. We find DS Lester’s evidence that the claimant was the only officer who had issues with information disappearing when files were uploaded from the H drive to the S drive to be credible. There was never any suggestion that the reason that information was lost was anything other than the practice of transferring information from the H drive to the S drive.

[93]The claimant admitted that he had been transferring data from his H drive to the shared S drive. We find that given the facts set out above, it was not unreasonable for DS Richens to not undertake a full audit of the claimant’s H drive or the shared S drive.

[94]We find that the outcome of the DPS investigation [47 paragraphs 6.1.26 and 6.1.27] were accurate and reasonable. Case Number: 3204752/2022 25 of 32

[95]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant because he did a protected act.

[96]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not related to race, or because the claimant did a protected act. 2.1.3.

[97]We repeat our findings about DS Lester’s knowledge of the claimant’s shoulder injury above. The claimant’s claim is misconceived. We find that DS Lester was within her authority to question officers who were absent from their workstations for more than the 45 minutes allowed to DCs. The claimant disputed the length of time he was away from his desk, but we prefer the evidence of DS Lester on that point.

[98]We find that on any interpretation of the evidence, DS Lester never refused to allow the claimant to carry out exercise on any date.

[99]The claimant never provided any OH or other medical report that indicated that he needed to do 45 minutes of exercise on his shoulder in a session. The emails he produced said that the exercise would take 20 minutes maximum, which would include warm up and warm down. We find that the clamant never notified DS Lester about his need to exercise as a therapeutic activity before 12 November 2019.

[100]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant because he did a protected act.

[101]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. 2.1.4

[102]We find that the factual basis of the claim was incorrect: it was DI Knight who asked the claimant to provide a hospital letter in respect of his hospital appointment on 19 November 2019. We make that finding because both DS Lester and DI Knight gave evidence that it was the latter who asked for the evidence. Neither officer’s evidence on the point was challenged by the claimant. That would be enough to end the claim there.

[103]However, to be fair to the claimant, we analysed the evidence of what happened. We repeat our findings about the knowledge of DS Lester as to the claimant’s shoulder injury. We find that DI Knight had the same knowledge: she was aware of a historical injury but believed that it was resolved. Case Number: 3204752/2022 26 of 32

[104]We find DI Knight’s explanation of the circumstances of her request for evidence of the appointment to be credible and make the following findings:104.1 DI Knight had asked officers other than the claimant and of different ethnicity to the claimant for proof of medical and dental appointments; and

104.2 Given DI Knight’s understanding that the claimant’s shoulder injury was historical and resolved, she need to know if the injury could compromise his ability to be deployed.

[105]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant because he did a protected act.

[106]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. 2.1.5

[107]This claim is an example of the claimant demonstrating little or no knowledge or understanding of the decision-making processes of senior officers and making wild suppositions based on little evidence. We find that the evidence of DS Lester about the events of 29 November 2019 was credible. Specifically, we made the following findings:107.1 The claimant’s evidence was vague and inconsistent about the officers that he said were released early. It was not credible.

107.2 Following the terrorist attack on London Bridge on 29 November 2019 there was a notification to all stations to keep officers at work . This was not disputed;

107.3 No officers were released from Lewisham to go home early;

107.4 Three offices (one black officer and two white officers) were told to report to Bromley Police Station to pick up their protective kit that was stored there in case they needed to be deployed at some stage; and

107.5 The reason that their PPE kit was at Bromley was because there was no storage space for it at Lewisham.

[108]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant. Case Number: 3204752/2022 27 of 32

[109]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. 2.1.6

[110]This was a duplicate of 2.1.2 and was withdrawn by the claimant. 2.1.7.

[111]We find that the description of the allegation in the List of Issues is factually incorrect. We do not find that DI Knight told the claimant that his complaint about DS Lester’s unfair treatment of him would not be investigated.

[112]We find that the clamant has retrospectively re-engineered his discussion with DI Knight for the benefit of his claim.

[113]We find that DI Knight knew that DS Lester was making a referral to PSU concerning the claimant’s conduct in relation to his management of files before 9 December 2019 because she admitted as much.

[114]We find that DI Knight made a near contemporaneous note of her meeting with the claimant on 9 December 2019 and put it into an email [44-46]. The claimant did not dispute the accuracy of any part of the email. We find that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the claimant s failure to complete work on time as directed. The claimant turned the meeting into a complaint about DS Lester.

[115]We find that DI Knight’s note stated that the clamant had, “…informed me that you wanted to make a complaint against DS Lester, and you weren’t going to put it in formal writing, and you wanted to lodge this to me, whilst you were present.”

[116]DI Knight then set out 7 allegations and ended the email by asking the claimant to respond if he disagreed with the content of the email. DI Knight then followed up with another email on 1 December 2019 [WB 44] referring to the previous email and noting that she had not received a response. She went on to advise: “If you wish to make a formal complaint against DS Lester and the other three officers mentioned, you need to submit this in writing and provide any supporting documentations for matters raised. Until I receive any further communication in relation to this matter this will remain dormant.”

[117]It was agreed that the claimant never responded to either of DI Knight’s emails.

[118]We find that DI Knight’s email made no reference to any allegation that the claimant had been subjected to race discrimination of victimisation.

[119]We find that there was no obligation on DI Knight to refer the matters complained of to the PSU or PSD because: Case Number: 3204752/2022 28 of 32119.1 The claimant had specifically said he did not want to put the complaint formal in writing. We find that it would have been unwise for DI Knight to have submitted the claim without the claimant’s authority; and

119.2 The claimant had said he had no faith in DPS, and he wanted a formal investigation carried out into DS Lester. We find that the only formal investigation available would have been by DPS, for which DI Knight would have needed the claimant’s consent to refer.

[120]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant.

[121]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. 2.1.8.

[122]It was agreed that the claimant was investigated by the Directorate of Professional Standards (“DPS”) for misconduct over the storage/uploading of IAMS logs.

[123]We repeat out findings under 2.1.2. above.

[124]We find that the claimant provided no evidence that the investigation was without cause. On the contrary, we have found that the claimant was the only officer who was deleting data by transferring files from his H drive to the shared S drive. The claimant produced no evidence to the contrary apart for assertions which contained no details of who the other officers were, when they had done the same as him and what the extent of their data loss had been.

[125]The claimant did not dispute the concerns that had been raised about his work by DS Lester and DI Knight as referred to in the paragraphs above.

[126]The claimant’s case is that DS Lester instigated and drove the investigation. We found her evidence to be more credible that the claimant’s supposition. We find that DS Lester had genuine concerns about the claimant’s work that were serious enough for her to seek advice from the PSU. We find that the PSU took the independent view that the conduct that had been brought to its attention was sufficiently serious to be referred to the DPS.

[127]We find that the DPS independently decided that the conduct warranted a disciplinary charge for the claimant. We therefore find that the decision to charge the claimant was not DS Lester’s. The decision was one made by the respondent, but we find its decision to have been reasonable. Case Number: 3204752/2022 29 of 32

[128]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant.

[129]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. 2.1.9

[130]It was never denied by the respondent that there was delay in investigating the claimant by the DPS between 18 January 2020, when the claimant was served with disciplinary papers, and 25 January 2022, when he was given a copy of DC Richens’ report.

[131]We were never told why there was a delay between DC Richens’ report dated 17 November 2021 and the claimant being told on 23 December 2021 by CI Byrne that he had no case to answer, or the further delay in giving the claimant a copy of the report itself.

[132]By any standard, we find that the claimant was treated unfairly by the respondent because of the delay and that he had a genuine reason to be aggrieved about the delay.

[133]We find that part of the delay was because the first officer appointed to conduct the investigation retired (which rather begs the question of why they were assigned the task in the first place) and the second investigator resigned “abruptly” in the words of DC Richens. Even so, it still took DC Richens about nine months to conclude his investigation.

[134]That said, we find DC Richens’ report to be thorough and find his conclusions at paragraph 6.1.26 and 6.1.27 to be reasonable. We find that the process was legitimate and not tainted by discrimination or victimisation. We make that finding because we found DC Richens’ evidence to be credible and there was no obvious connection between him and those who the claimant alleged were at the centre of the plan to discriminate against him.

[135]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant.

[136]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. 2.1.10 Case Number: 3204752/2022 30 of 32

[137]We find that the claimant produced no evidence to suggest that it was anything other than standard practice to put an officer on restricted duties when they received a disciplinary charge. We find the rationale for the decision to impose restricted duties [WB 62-63] by Commander Roper on 12 February 2020 to be reasonable and not based on racist motivation.

[138]We find that the claimant was not on restricted duty until 4 May 2022 as set out in the List of Issues. We make that finding because the claimant was informed by CI Byrne that he had no case to answer on 23 December 2021 and he started a new post on 24 January 2022 at which time he was told that he should have his POCA duties reinstated that week.

[139]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant.

[140]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. 2.1.11.

[141]We find that it was not disputed that the claimant was issued with a Written Improvement Notice (“WIN”) on 17 March 2022 [302-303] (not 7 March as stated in the List of Issues). The WIN was discharged by DI Shuttleworth after the claimant appealed it. The reason for the discharge was that the conduct complained of was so old that the claimant was no longer “currently” working in the department at Lewisham.

[142]We found DI Shuttleworth to be empathetic with the claimant in the way he dealt with and upheld the appeal. However, we find that there was no apparent error in DI Shuttleworth’s conclusion [333] that had the complaint been presented in a timelier manner, he would not have upheld the claimant’s appeal.

[143]We find that there is nothing to suggest a racial element or victimisation element to the respondent’s conduct as alleged.

[144]We find that there were no facts from which we could decide, in the absence of any other explanation that the respondent harassed the claimant related to race, directly discriminated against the claimant because of race or victimised the claimant.

[145]Had we found that the burden of proof switched, we would have found that the respondent had showed by its evidence that the reason for the treatment was not race. Time Case Number: 3204752/2022 31 of 32

[146]We find that allegations set out in paragraphs 2.1.1 to 2.1.7 inclusive of the List of Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 were not acts extended over a period. We make that finding because:146.1 The acts were, on the face of them and taken individually were out of time;

146.2 Early conciliation started on 5 July 2022 and ended on 3 August 2022. The claim form was presented on 19 August 2022;

146.3 The claimant had Police Federation advice available to him at all times;

146.4 The first of the allegations was on 27 September 2019 and the last was on 9 December 2019; The ACAS referral was therefore 2 years, 9 months, and 8 days after the first allegation and 2 years, 6 months, and 26 days after the last allegation;

146.5 We find that the seven allegations are a series of unconnected and isolated acts, so time runs from the date of each of the acts;

146.6 We agree with Mr Uduje’s submissions at pages 5 to 7 of his closing submissions;

146.7 We find that the claimant offered no credible reason to explain his failure to make a claim earlier;

146.8 We repeat our findings above that some of the allegations appear to have been reengineered retrospectively by the claimant to bolster his claim; and

146.9 We do not find it just and equitable to extend time.

[147]The claims of harassment related to race, direct race discrimination, and victimisation therefore fail of jurisdictional grounds on time.

[148]We find that allegations 2.1.8 to 2.1.11 were acts extending over a period because, although 2.8 occurred before 2.1.7., these allegations were all related to the same thing: the investigation of the claimant and the actions taken because of the investigation. We find that they are therefore acts extending over a period. However, they fail on the facts. Approved by: Employment Judge Shore Dated: 30 July 2025 Case Number: 3204752/2022 32 of 32 Reasons sent to the parties on: Date: 18 August 2025 Case Number: 3204752/2022 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr R Vyas Respondent: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Findings of Fact

[1]The Judgment in this case was delivered orally to the parties on 17 April 2025. On 18 April 2025, the claimant emailed the Tribunal asking for written reasons.

[2]The written reasons were submitted to the Tribunal on 30 July 2025 for promulgation. At the time of writing this decision, it appears that the written reasons have not been promulgated. In our written reasons we set out in 12,700 words over 36 pages why the claimant’s claims had all been dismissed. He was in the hearing room to hear the reasons.

[3]In his email of 18 April 2025 and in subsequent emails he asked the Tribunal to explain how he could “apply for reconsideration in my case and provide guidance in relation to time limit.” He also applied for guidance eon how to appeal and how to obtain “video/audio recordings of the hearing.”

[4]The claimant has never indicated to the Employment Tribunal what his grounds for reconsideration are, which parts of the decision he is asking to be reconsidered, and what his grounds for reconsideration are.

[5]The claimant has, however, lodged an appeal against the Judgment at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 29 Amy 2025. In section 7 of the Notice of Appeal, the clamant stated: Case Number: 3204752/2022 2 of 2 “The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the employment tribunal erred in law in that (I am unable to complete this section I am still waiting for written reasons for the tribunal’s judgment in my case, video/audio recordings of the whole case, and apply for reconsideration of my case, the tribunal misunderstanding or misapplying the law, finding a fact that was not supported by evidence, or reaching a decision that is considered ‘perverse, fundings that are wholly unsupported by the evidence presented, time limit guidance in relation to my case was considered by tribunal was wrong. There is possibly new evidence, the exitance of which could not have been reasonably known or foreseen before the decision, The interests of justice require a review.).”

[6]With such a lack of specificity, it is impossible to determine which parts of the Judgment are subject to the application for reconsideration. He gives no details of: 6.1. How we misunderstood or misapplied the law (or which laws were misunderstood or misapplied); 6.2. Which finding of fact was not supported by evidence; 6.3. Which part or parts of the decision were perverse and why they were wholly unsupported by the evidence presented; 6.4. What is meant by the phrase “time limit guidance in relation to my case was considered by tribunal was wrong”; 6.5. What new evidence is possibly available and why the claimant has failed to include it in his Notice of Appeal; or 6.6. What are the interests of justice that require a review.

[7]I determine that the application for reconsideration made by the claimant has no reasonable prospects of success. Approved by: