Mohammed Arif v John Baker & Ors [2026] EWCC 14

“(1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of [it]. (2) Regard may be had, in particular, to…(a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness; (b) whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated; (c) whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay; (d) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters; (e) whether the original statement was an edited account, or made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose; (f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.”

“I would say something about the importance of contemporary documents as a means of getting at the truth, not only of what was going on, but also as to motivation and state of mind of those concerned. That applies to documents passing between the parties, but with even greater force to a party’s internal documents including e-mails and instant messaging. Those tend to be the documents where a witness’s guard is down and their true thoughts are plain to see. Indeed, it has become a commonplace of judgments in commercial cases where there is often extensive disclosure to emphasise the importance of the contemporary documents. Although this cannot be regarded as a rule of law, those documents are generally regarded as far more reliable than the oral evidence of witnesses, still less their demeanour while giving evidence.…It is therefore particularly important that, in a case where there are contemporary documents which appear on their face to provide cogent evidence contrary to the conclusion which the judge proposes to reach, he should explain why they are not to be taken at face value or are outweighed by other compelling considerations….”

“It was of paramount importance for the Judge to test that evidence against the contemporaneous documents and known or probable facts if and to the extent that it was possible to do so. We say, ‘if and to the extent that it was possible to do so’, because it is important to bear in mind that there may be situations in which the approach advocated in Gestmin [at [22]] will not be open to a judge, or, even if it is, will be of limited assistance. There may simply be no - or no relevant - contemporaneous documents, and even if there are, the documents…may be ambivalent or otherwise insufficiently helpful….Even in a case which is fairly document-heavy (as this one was) there may be critical events or conversations which are completely undocumented…. Faced with documentary lacunae of this nature, the judge has little choice but to fall back on considerations such as the overall plausibility of the evidence; the consistency or inconsistency of the behaviour of the witness and other individuals with the witness's version of events; supporting or adverse inferences to be drawn from other documents; and the judge's assessment of the witness's credibility, including his or her impression of how they performed in the witness box, especially when their version of events was challenged in cross-examination.”

“[The Claimant’s] identity as Muslim was ‘weaponised’ by individuals including [Cllr Samra] in their campaign against the ‘Muslim cemetery’. There was then…. a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslim Party members.”

“[s.136 EqA] means that the claimant has the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, those matters which he or she wishes the tribunal to find as facts from which the inference could properly be drawn (in the absence of any other explanation) that an unlawful act was committed. This is not the whole picture since, along with those facts which the claimant proves, the tribunal must also take account of any facts proved by the respondent which would prevent the necessary inference from being drawn.”

“Membership of the whole borough is handled by one individual – Suky Samra – who is also an officer of the St Matthews branch and the choosing of members becomes apparent when you look at the membership which clearly shows that long standing members have not been renewed or notified that their membership has expired.”

“…to notify you as the Chairman of Walsall South and North Conservative Association of our deep frustration and disillusionment at the lack of co-ordinated political activity by the Association in the Local and European elections in May 2014 and more recently in the by-election in Birchills and Leamore. The attached petition contains signatures of 77 members of the Association….We now call upon the Chairman and the Secretary of the Association to convene an urgent general meeting within 28 days of all members in accordance with the Constitution governing Conservative Associations to discuss the following agenda; 1) Motion of no confidence in current Executive Committee of the Association and 2) Subject to 1, the election of Officer of the Constituency Association.”

“Mr Azam said he struggled to understand why he had been de-selected as a councillor….Mr Azam listed his work for the party and as a councillor. Although he had been de-selected he had helped in Bloxwich and offered to help in other wards. Mr Washbrook asked about the timing of the petition which was just as recently joined members were eligible to vote (having been members 3 months). Mr Azam said he knew nothing about this. He did not know who started the petition or who circulated it… On [why he signed the petition], Mr Azam replied that he had seen the letter and understood it to be within the constitution….Mr Azam was asked how the Executive had been negligent. He replied that no help had been given in elections and by-election. Mr Washbrook asked what more could have been done in the by-election. Mr Azam agreed that campaign had been fought hard. Mr Sohal asked if he had helped in his former seat at the election. He replied that his offers of help had not been responded to. Mr Hicken asked Mr Azam if he knew who had delivered the petition to his home and who had collected it. Mr Azam said he did not know, his father dealt with it.”

“We have identified a Pakistani Islamic group who are attempting to remove the Executive and take control of the Association. These are predominantly new members who were recruited specifically for this purpose. They have petitioned for a SGM without foundation in pursuance of their own separate agenda. We do not consider that the petition is valid. As the petitioners' actions are inconsistent with the objectives and well-being of the party we propose to terminate their membership…. In Jan 2014 when we were advised that the Association was coming out of assisted status a small group of Muslim councillors started to aggressively sign-up compliant members from their Islamic community. The group's intentions are to have a controlling majority at AGM for the election of officers and selection of local candidates. This…was pursued covertly by registering and funding these via the Conservative web site. There were also persistent efforts by this group to obtain a comprehensive list of the existing membership to ascertain how many new members they had to sign up….. Members of the Islamic community alerted us to this process having been approached to join the party for this purpose. However, they were not prepared to speak out publicly in fear of intimidation or being vilified by their peers. We monitored this…and noted a number of irregularities; new members shared a common contact E-mail address, a number were not on the electoral register or shared addresses and were of Pakistani heritage…. The instigators of the petition wish to conceal their identity. With the possible exception of 3 people, all of the petitioners are of Pakistani Islamic heritage. This attempt to take control of the Association by gerrymandering membership provides irrefutable evidence as to the purpose of this group… Walsall was identified as…prone to electoral fraud; vote harvesting, postal vote abuse and fraudulent registration. These practices are prevalent in Pakistan and regrettably there are members of our community who derive from this heritage that believe they can emulate those practices here in UK. I am concerned in identifying this group in terms of racial or religious profile for fear of being labelled as racialist or not being PC. However, I would be negligent in my duty as Chairman of the Association to ignore the evidence and where it leads. Over 29% of the electorate voted for UKIP locally and an additional 15% went on to vote for UKIP in the EU Election. UKIP have only one policy 'Immigration'. It would be electorally disastrous in Walsall to allow the Association to be taken over and dominated by a Pakistani Islamic clique.”

“Officers of the Association have determined that you recently joined the party as part of a special interest group. The intention of this group is to undermine the political cohesion, activities and objectives of the Association. You recently participated in an attempt to undermine, remove and replace the officers of [the] Executive, in support of the group’s aim of taking immediate control of the Association.” imntrol of th Given (i) this was expressed as a conclusion more than an allegation; (ii) the letter said it would be the Executive under challenge (albeit under an independent Chair) who would decide it; and (iii) the date given was the 1st October 2014, it is surprising any petitioners at all attended the meeting on 2nd October 2014. Yet three did, including former-Councillor Imran Azam as I said, who was expelled by majority with three Executive members not voting. Mr Matloob Hussain told the Executive on 2nd October 2014 he signed the petition but did not see the covering letter: “Mr Hussain found his subscription had lapsed. He was concerned that the party were losing council seats and had been persuaded to stand in Palfrey Ward [in 2012 as] no other member was available….[but he had] had no help in the election. His other concern was he could have helped to get the vote out in St Matthews Ward but was not asked to help. This is why he signed the petition and apologised for doing so. He had thought it was calling for a round table meeting to bring everyone together. He was not part of a group seeking to undermine the party and apologised again.”

“Membership functions (including renewals) were not carried out properly. A culture of unwelcome towards new members existed. The fundamental democratic right to petition was denied. The reasons put forward by the officers of the Federation and relied upon by the Executive of 2 October 2014 were fundamentally flawed for the following reasons: There was insufficient evidence upon which the accusations laid could be substantiated. There was insufficient evidence that they were part of a special interest group. There was insufficient evidence that the group was determined to undermine the political cohesion of Walsall Conservatives. The Panel recommends to the Board that: 1. The practice of new members reporting at the constituency office to present identification documents be discontinued. 2. The members who have appealed be reinstated… 3. The decision of the Executive Council meeting held on 2 October 2014 be set aside. 4. The existing Deputy Chairman (Membership) [i.e. Mr Samra] be removed from office…... 5. The responsibility for membership of the Walsall Federation should fall to the Deputy Chairman (Membership) West Midlands Region who must report in this context to the Chairman of the National Convention.”

“The make-up of the panel was split between representatives from the three constituencies, Walsall North, Walsall South (the Federation area) and Aldridge Brownhills, with those from the Federation…. having a majority of 4-3 over those from Aldridge Brownhills...[The Claimant said present were Cllr Bird as Council Leader with John Rochelle like Cllr Murray from Aldridge; and from the Federation Executive Cllr Washbrook, Brian Letts, Sandeep Sohal and John Baker, with Mr Samra notably being absent]… The usual procedure is that a list of questions is agreed, which are asked in turn by the respective panel members with time given for supplementary questions. After the interview is over there is an immediate vote by secret ballot with no group discussion, to prevent stronger characters influencing others on the panel. This process is usually a formality for sitting councillors (and I expected this to be the case in respect of Mr Arif’s interview), except where there may have been incidents arising during the current term that may call into question their suitability for being able to seek re-selection as a councillor. We saw five or six candidates prior to Mr Arif, some of whom I did not really consider to be councillor ‘material’, but all of whom were effectively given a rubber-stamp by the majority by way of approval (some of whom I did not vote for). [The Claimant agreed the approved candidates were Mushtaq Ahmed (a former Councillor who had as his referees Mr Samra and Gurmeet Sohal); Zulfiqar Ali (whose referees were Gurmeet Sohal and Mushtaq Ahmed); Yasin Mohammed, whose referees were Cllrs Bird and Andrew); Akbar Ali (whose referees were the Claimant and Sue Arnold), and Glyn Marston (whose referees were Mr Samra and Cllr Hicken]…. But at Mr Arif’s interview things were different [Cllr Bird recalled whilst none of the others had ‘embarrassing’ material put to them, despite his own objection, Cllr Washbrook put three matters to the Claimant]. The Walsall representatives turned on him like a pack of wolves. It was dreadful. They ignored the standard questions and started dragging up things, one of which I remember from about 5 or 6 years prior to the interview concerned one of Mr Arif’s properties that had been used by the tenants as a cannabis factory. The police had investigated and it was quite clear that Mr Arif had had no knowledge of this, which was normal given that this was a commercial property. He was accused of all sorts of things in the further questions put to him, none of them proven. Those questions were not relevant to whether he should be allowed to continue to stand as a councillor. He was already a long standing, well-established, well-respected councillor. They just turned on him with these accusations, which appeared to have been pre-written for them, you could see that they were reading from these pre-written scripts which were not their own. Mr Arif was vilified at this interview. There was little I could do..as chair other than attempt to bring members back to order, but I could not stop them from asking whatever they wanted. Me and the other Aldridge Brownhills members asked the correct questions on the list, but it was obvious the Walsall members (Peter Washbrook, Brian Letts, Sandeep Sohal and John Baker) had pre-determined their vote and were just looking to justify not approving Mr Arif, [as] duly occurred.”

“I feel obliged to write to you because I am not entirely confident that the decision regarding [the Claimant] was made with absolute impartiality and open-mindedness by all members of the committee... I have no hard evidence that any member of the committee showed bias for or against him, but my ‘gut feeling’ is there may have been certain pre-determinations…”

“As a Councillor and cabinet member, you organised a meeting about Kashmir at the Town Hall….to organise people to march for Kashmir in London next Sunday…outside Indian High Commission in London to raise concerns about Indian soldiers killing innocent Kashmiri men and women in occupied Kashmir by India...Can you comment on how this activity might be perceived and interpreted by the electorate locally and nationally ?”

“In August 2014 as a Councillor and Cabinet Member and a member of the Walsall Coalition for Palestinian Rights, you organised a peaceful demonstration urging Walsall Council to fly the Palestinian flag, in solidarity with people..affected by the conflict in Gaza. [the Press quoted]… ‘Councillor Arif, Conservative member for St Matthews Ward said the subject crossed party and religious lines’. Have you supported any other protest activities related to Palestine ? Can you comment on how this action might be perceived by the electorate both locally and nationally ?”

“I believe that the questions I was asked by the selection committee were deliberately unfair and designed to prejudice the vote against me. I do not believe that the questions selected for other candidates were similar in nature or contained elements of race and religion as mine did. I would therefore question the objectivity and fairness of the author of the questions and would like disclosure of the questions put to other candidates….”

“An email from MA of 9 November 2015 to SP for the attention of Lord Feldman protested that the decisions were incompatible with natural justice which [under] the Party Constitution applied to “Any removal … of office or other position” within the Party, reiterated MA’s view that he had been subject to discrimination on religious grounds and threatened legal action.”

“[A] formal complaint to the Conservative Party Board which alleged that he had been discriminated against on religious grounds by the Walsall Federation Approval Panel and…that the approval process therefore breached the Party's constitution [as]…natural justice was denied… The Panel has been asked to investigate this matter and to establish whether there are reasonable grounds to conclude that such discrimination took place and consequently that natural justice had been denied.”

“Has [the Claimant] made his accusations in writing and identified those he is complaining about ? Has he submitted new evidence to support this new complaint or is it a rework of his unfounded allegations of prejudice and racial bias which were addressed and rejected at his appeal ? If the latter is the case, then his complaint is malicious and should not be allowed to proceed. With respect he cannot continue to regurgitate the same issue because he does not like the final decision of an exhaustive process and independent review.” (my italics) However, as I have explained, far from the October approval appeal ‘addressing and rejecting the allegations of prejudice and racial bias’, it did not explore them at all. Indeed, Mrs Boulter tried to shut down the Claimant’s attempts even to criticise the questions. Nevertheless, this shows Cllr Washbrook saw the Claimant’s appeal to him on 14th October as ‘unfounded allegations of prejudice and racial bias’. Moreover, the timing of the Roberts-Booth investigation caused the Walsall Party some difficulty, since as again noted in the McColgan Report, on 4th January 2016, Alan Mabbutt from the national Party instructed Cllr Washbrook not to proceed with the St Matthews branch meeting on 12th January, or the Federation’s AGM on the 20th January. Cllr Washbrook, as he was to make a habit of doing, ignored these instructions and proceeded with the AGM, but not the St Matthew’s ward meeting and selection. On 20th January 2016, he explained his decision to Mr Mabbutt: “At this point I cannot see any compelling reason or impropriety not to proceed [with the AGM]. Rest assured if the Disciplinary Committee finds in favour of [the Claimant] I will be the first to resign and I suspect followed by other Officers and members. It will be for the Board to decide on the constitutional validity and outcome of the AGM in light of the…Report.”

“The Panel consider the decision not to approve Cllr Arif as a prospective council candidate was not motivated on religious grounds. However the Panel consider that it would not be unreasonable for an individual to conclude that natural justice had been denied to Cllr Arif. The Panel therefore recommend that the application of Cllr Arif for approved council candidate status be re-heard by a newly constituted Panel (none of whom should have served on the initial approval panel), made up of senior members of the West Midlands Region, to ensure the principle of natural justice is seen to have been upheld.... Reasons: The Panel understands that Cllr Arif was instrumental in leading the efforts to reinstate the 170+ [sic] expelled members (who were primarily Muslim) and noted that relations between Cllr Arif and the Association Executive appear, at best, to be strained. There is, it would appear, personal animosity, of historic origin, between certain key individuals. In Cllr Arif's approval interview, he was asked three questions..not asked of other potential candidates. The Panel acknowledge that the approval panel should be entitled to make appropriate enquiry of prospective candidates. The Chairman of the Association explained to the Panel that the origin of these questions lay with concerns expressed by local residents obtained during canvassing. One of these related to a police raid at a property co-owned by Cllr Arif in 2010, a matter already in the public domain. The other two questions related to Palestine and Kashmir where Cllr Arif holds publicly expressed views. We understand that he has further undertaken action to support the Palestinian cause and to raise concerns against certain alleged actions of India in Kashmir. Whilst it is entirely plausible (as was explained to the Panel) that these questions were raised (rightly or wrongly) out of concern about a perceived sectarian agenda (beyond religion and/or race) and/or from a concern that these are not issues on which a member of the Council should focus, the open wording of the questions presented was such that they could potentially have been perceived to have been asked with a religious agenda in mind (although the Panel do not believe religion was the motivation). It should be noted that Cllr Arif is a Councillor of over 12 years standing, generally acknowledged to be conscientious and hard-working, and that there was no compelling suggestion put to us that he has conducted himself in a sectarian or divisive way in his time as a Councillor….”

“The Board of the Conservative Party therefore instruct that the application of Cllr Arif for approved council candidate status be re-heard by a newly constituted Panel (none of whom should have served on the initial approval panel), made up of members of the Party in the West Midlands, to ensure that the principle of natural justice is seen to have been upheld….The Board regrets that relations within the Walsall Conservative Association continue to be strained and calls on individuals to put their personal differences aside and unite to pursue an agenda not based on faction, clique, control or personal animosity, but of unity in the interests of the Conservative Party. The Board is concerned that its instructions following the [Mort Report’s] recommendations do not appear to have been implemented in full. The Board requests a Report from Officers on progress towards implementation of [those] recommendations…by no later than Friday 20th February. The Board noted that the AGM of the Association had taken place. The Board of the Party seeks an urgent explanation from the Officers of the Association as to their actions in proceeding with the meeting despite advice and instructions to the contrary.”

“The Board of the Conservative Party RESOLVES that [the Claimant’s] selection as a local government candidate is a matter for the Conservative Party members within the Ward only and without any further reference to the Federation Officers, or the Executive Council or whatever. The Board further RESOLVES that the decision of the Party members in the Ward in the matter of [the Claimant’s] selection shall be final.”

“[We intend] to allow all of the qualifying members of St Matthews ward to exercise their Constitutional right to vote, for the candidate of their choice; without fear of intimidation, verbal abuse or the threat of violence. We intend to carry out this process in a totally transparent, independently verifiable way and in doing so eliminate any possibility of vote rigging. However, it would appear the only procedural option you are prepared to contemplate is one that disqualifies many of those entitled members and places party members at risk, against their wishes. On whose local knowledge or evidence do you casually dismiss [my recommendation for a postal vote] I have made in good faith..? [W]e have not held a St Matthews Ward AGM, as you wrongly stated in your response; we took your guidance and have cancelled the meeting twice. You also neglect the fact that there will be many new members at this Ward meeting. Also, that the religious or racial selection issues have never been addressed in an open forum. With regard to the Ward General Meeting, I have provisionally selected the 30 March 2016, I have sourced a venue and we are expediting the documentation accordingly; in the absence of a postal option. However, no matter which date we choose, many of our members will be unavailable due to the proximity of the school holidays. The timing of the meeting is also a dilemma as many of our members have work or family commitments. [For] example, a husband and wife cannot both leave their children unattended at home, to attend a meeting. Clearly we cannot meet everyone’s preferences in this regard. There is no written rule in the Constitution or selection procedure which states that members must be present throughout the meeting. In fact, the election of Ward officers at an AGM takes place, without the candidates addressing the meeting…. By insisting on a General meeting with the requirement for members’ to be present throughout, you have created a new rule that will arbitrarily disenfranchise yet more members. You appear to place greater emphasis on the administration of the meeting giving scant attention to the constitutional rights of the electorate. What precisely are the Board’s priorities in this regard ? The candidates have provided a comprehensive CV and a 500- word narrative on why they wish to be the candidate; this will be sent to all members. This more than adequately meets the requirement of a candidate’s personal address to the electorate. Many of the Ward members have already made up their minds on their choice of candidate and need only now to exercise their right to vote. Our preference is still a postal ballot which we believe a foolproof system of polling the membership….”

“Please would you ensure these two people have had no prior involvement with the long-running dispute in Walsall and that they have checked the accuracy of the electoral roll for the Ward in advance of the meeting and scrutinise the ballot carefully.”

“[G]reat care had been taken to ensure only members attended. Regional personnel had their own independent list to sign people in and required membership cards though not photo ID. There were 180 or 200 members in attendance, more than the membership of most associations in safer seats. It was clear the room was ‘packed with people signed up by both sides’ but a lot of work had been done to ensure that people who were signed up were bona fide members and his view was that most of those whose memberships had been paid for without their knowledge had been weeded out..”

“On the night anyone who was on the list and confirmed their name and address was allowed in. Members who had a valid official membership card but weren’t on the list were checked against the electoral register and if they were registered in the Ward they were allowed in. Anyone who was not on the membership list and no membership card were not permitted to enter. Some members did go home and return with their cards. It is incredibly difficult to check out these members as a number have names that appear differently on the register to their membership cards and driving licence / passports. Suki Samra’s mother was not permitted to enter because she had no membership card and wasn’t on the list. When she returned with her card it was noted her name appears differently on the membership list and the electoral roll. I worked on the premise that wherever possible we would allow people to attend if they were able to prove that they were valid members of the Association. We did our best in very trying circumstances to ensure the signing in of members was done in accordance with the rules.”

“I have had the honour of representing St Matthews Ward for the last 12 years. I have recently been deselected by the local branch and I will not be able to stand in May’s election. I have personally nothing to gain from this letter, but I would like the truth to be known…traffic congestion caused as a result of the Caldmore Road one-way scheme…I do not like politicians misleading the public. I thought I would respond further to the letter from the two Labour ward councillors, Aftab Nawaz and Eileen Russell dated 20th March 2016 to expose their hypocrisy…”

“I am shocked to learn about the suspension and intended expulsion of Mohammed Arif by Walsall Federation of a long-standing member and Councillor not just for St. Matthew's Ward but helpful throughout Walsall, including Pleck. Councillor Mohammed Arif ran my whole election campaign from holding organising meetings, designing, writing leaflets, target letters, designing petitions to the election day action and coordination. When I learnt of his deselection, I went to see him with my agent and former Pleck Councillor Mushtaq Ahmed and we asked him to lead the election campaign in Pleck as I was getting no help from the Walsall Federation's executive committee. I was aware in the last 2 elections in St. Matthew's Arif and Imran Azam (2 sitting councillors) were ignored by the newly selected candidate. Councillor Arif had ran last the local elections in 2015 for the previous candidate in Pleck. I knew there were several key figures sympathetic to the Labour candidate in Pleck who had warned Arif to stay away as it would have consequences for his future elections in Walsall. He shared these warnings with me and then ignored the threats and spent his time helping the Conservative Party in Pleck and worked until very late evenings on most days. We did not win Pleck and were never expected to either, but we got a good campaign together so much so that the Labour Party was so worried that they had to pull councillors from other areas to help, including St. Matthew's. This must have helped our other candidates in Walsall. There were many rumours about Councillor Arif joining the Labour Party in Pleck, but these were malicious rumours spread by the Labour supporters to cause more friction and in-fighting. Mohammed Arif is a recognised loyal Conservative Party figure across Walsall who has helped to recruit many people like me, including Suky Samra who deselected him. I know Arif campaigned for the Conservative Party in St. Matthew's Ward, Pleck, Paddock and other areas. I have seen him work his socks-off for the Party. He doesn't deserve this treatment.”

“I know that moves are afoot to try to blame the defeat on certain people and try to get them expelled, including me. Stephen will recall, witnesses appeared in front of Simon Mort’s committee to state that at the request of Mr Samra ward members were asking others not to vote for me in 2012.”

“In the subsequent weeks I received additional complaints from four prominent residents of Muslim Pakistani heritage….I invited the Federation Treasurer (Brian Letts) to assist me and hear the allegations. A meeting was held at the Royal Hotel Walsall at which the four individuals voluntarily came forward to provide verbal reports concerning the activities carried out by Mohammed Arif and Mohammed Azam during the election campaign and the comments they were making encouraging the electorate to vote for other candidates. At the conclusion of the meeting, we both agreed that there was sufficient compelling evidence to consider initiating action for the expulsion of a party member under the Guidelines for Expulsion….”

“Other than provide a witness statement I had no dealings in this matter, I did not as Mohammed Arif has pertained take part in any investigations nor did I involve myself with any other witnesses.”

“I have been a member of the Conservative party for the last two years. I have also been a local Candidate for the party. I have run my own business in Walsall for 25 years and I am on a committee and am well respected in the community. I have supported local Conservative candidates in Palfrey, Paddock and St Matthews in 2015, I also worked with Sue Arnold in the parliamentary campaign. This year I worked tirelessly for Suky Samra the candidate in St Matthews. When canvassing my community, I was repeatedly told that Councillor Arif who has a close connection with our community had been to see them, and that Arif had told them to vote for the Labour candidate as Suky Samra was a ‘bad person’ and did not like ‘Muslims’ and had deselected him. After the election result, I was shocked that Suky lost so I went to see the people who had promised me their support for Suky, they told me that Arif had persuaded them to vote for Labour. I firmly believe that Suky Samra lost the election because Councillor Arif persuaded the community in St Matthews to vote for the labour candidate.”

“My name is Mozamil Khan and I have stood as a Conservative Party Candidate in Bentley and Darlaston North in 2015 and 2016 and this year in Palfrey Ward. It was recently brought to my attention that a statement has been given in my name. I have now seen a copy of it. It is known as ‘Statement C’ and submitted to Walsall Association and to Central Office. I wish to state that I have never given any statement to the local association or anyone else in relation to former St. Matthew’s Councillor Mohammed Arif. I wish to withdraw the statement given in my name.”

“Moz Khan told me that he had overhead people gossiping that [the Claimant] had informed people not to vote for [Mr Samra], though he had not himself seen [the Claimant] campaigning against him and did not know whether he had done so. He told me that a week after the 2016 elections Mr Samra….had visited and asked him about the discussions he had overheard. He had told Mr Samra he had ‘heard the community have been discussing him during the election and he had made a note of this. I am not completely sure of what’s happened as I’ve not witnessed this myself’. I asked Mr Khan whether he had ever made a statement in connection with [the Claimant] and Mr Khan said that he had not, that he had been asked by [Mr Samra] about the reports about [the Claimant] and that he (Mr Khan) ‘had told [Mr Samra] not to send any document but they had sent it’. He was later shown a statement by [the Claimant] which had not come from him, though [the Claimant] thought it had and he had been asked to (and did) sign a statement saying that the other (unsigned) statement had not come from him.”

“The Executive Council of Walsall Conservative Federation will consider your Membership of the Conservative Party for the following reasons: Officers of the Association have carried out an investigation and determined that you Mohammad Arif, actively campaigned against the Conservative Party candidate in the May 2016 local Election in the constituency of Walsall South. A number of local residents have independently come forward to report that you made derogatory comments about the Official Conservative Candidate in St Matthews and you encouraged Conservative supporters to vote for the Labour candidate. Active support of another political party and acting against the interest and objectives of the Conservative Party is incompatible with your continued membership of the Walsall Conservative Federation. You will have an opportunity to be heard at the next meeting of the Executive Council. The meeting will be held on 30 June 2016 at 1900hrs at the Royal Hotel, Ablewell Street Walsall, West Midlands, WS1 2EL and will be Chaired by an independent Chairman. If you would like to attend, please let me know in advance of the meeting, no later than the 17 June…”

“…to determine why the Party lost St Matthew’s Ward and consequently control of Walsall Council. May I suggest to you that until this Panel has reported its findings to the Board, the Federation set aside the meeting scheduled to discuss the expulsion of Mohammed Arif. I cannot see any merit in proceeding with this meeting. The interests of our Party are best served with a cooling-off period now until the Panel can be established,… Would you kindly acknowledge receipt…together with your agreement….”

“The reasons we lost St Matthews in a straight fight between Labour and Conservative was a lack of time to campaign and the active, deliberate and coercive campaigning directed at Conservative Supporters by Arif and Azam, for which there is overwhelming evidence… Having analysed the election statistics and Mr Samra’s hard campaign, he summarised the disciplinary case and named the four witnesses. He then added: “The second factor was a lack of campaign time. This was a direct consequence of the process and procedure you initiated in November 2015.. You will recall…directing a disciplinary investigation [of the Claimant’s] false and uncorroborated accusations of religious discrimination by the local panel. This resulted in a prolonged, drawn out and totally unnecessary investigation which found no evidence of religious discrimination. There followed Arif’s appearance before an independent panel. However, the original questions put to Arif that were deemed to be fair and appropriate, were withheld from this new panel. There followed a direction to convene a local ward election in St Matthews. The Ward Chairmen Harry Gandham made strenuous representations directly to you, to hold a postal ballot to expedite the process and avoid a sectarian confrontation at the meeting, to no avail. I attended that meeting as Chairman and witnessed that division. It was clear from the outset that voters on the losing side, would not be voting in the election for the candidate who won. A huge Conservative own goal that clearly contributed to loss of the seat. With respect, had you supported the original local panel's decision in November, not to place Arif on the candidates list, which had been properly appealed, reviewed and finalised. I believe we could now be celebrating a win in St Matthews and could have avoided the Conservative schism in that ward. I disagree with your assessment; I believe it would be in the best interest of the Party to bring this matter to an early conclusion. I see no merit in allowing the current unresolved accusations to fester for another year without resolution. These last 8 months have shown it will only encourage further email complaints, lobbying and infighting….We are currently in opposition with no elections or selections on the horizon. This is a situation has been totally created by Arif. All he had to do is stay silent and inactive until after the election. [Y]ou are asking for,,, the Federation to condone his actions…clearly in breach of the Constitution and Party rules. Moreover, he was responsible in effecting our defeat in St Matthews. I fail to understand why Arif is suddenly so important to Mike Bird at this time. Moreover, why does it warrant your direct intervention on his behalf at this early stage of investigation on what is after all a local Association matter.”

“…Officers…shall ensure that the individual receives in writing, at least 14 days before the meeting of the Executive Council considering the motion: (i) notification that they have moved the suspension, termination or refusal (as the case may be) of his membership of the Federation; (ii) the grounds for the motion and any supporting evidence; (iii) notification that he has the opportunity to appear before the Executive Council to make representations and provide evidence as to why such motion should not be confirmed….”

“The Federation Chairman has…reject[ed] the Party's Chairman's request. The Panel, established to review the processes adopted by the Federation in recent times, will no doubt wish to consider this exchange of emails as part of their deliberations. I assume should Mr Arif be subject to disciplinary action by the Federation, he will wish to exercise his right of appeal.”

“This situation has been totally created by Mohammad Arif and Mohammad Azam. All they had to do was stay silent and inactive until after the election. They have damaged the image of the Conservative Party in the community; by portraying the Party as being anti-Muslim and racist. By campaigning against the Conservative Candidate, they were instrumental in effecting our defeat in St Matthews and consequent loss of control of Walsall Council. Both members are clearly in breach of the Constitution and Rules of the Party and as a result of their activities their expulsion from the Conservative Party is warranted and necessary.”

“They have damaged the image of the Conservative party in the community; by portraying the Party as being anti-Muslim and racist.”

“You will recall your personal intervention on behalf of Arif, in directing a disciplinary investigation based on his false and uncorroborated accusations of religious discrimination by the local panel. This resulted in a prolonged, drawn out and totally unnecessary investigation which found no evidence of religious discrimination.”

“a series of malicious and false accusation of religious discrimination made against the Officers of the Federation, orchestrated by Arif.”

“Has [the Claimant]. submitted new evidence to support this new complaint or is it a rework of his unfounded allegations of prejudice and racial bias which were addressed and rejected at his appeal ? If the latter is the case, then his complaint is malicious and should not be allowed to proceed.”

“[N]either Mr Arif or Mr Azam were present to answer the allegations made in the statements that a vote be taken on the evidence before the Executive. Mr Hancox expressed his dissatisfaction with the evidence as Mr Arif had helped in the recent election in wards in Walsall North. Mr Livingston stated that the meeting had to make its decision strictly on the evidence presented to it and other considerations could not be brought into the proceedings, both Mr Afrif and Mr Azam had had opportunity to dispute the allegations made but had chosen not to do so.”

‘Relying on fabricated evidence at the appeal hearings on 9 November 2017 and 13 September 2018’

“I have been a loyal member of the Conservative Party for 25 years and will not be chased out by a bunch of Islamophobes, bullies and those who deny others natural justice. The continued lack of action by the Party Board could reasonably infer that it condones Islamophobia but as a Party we rightly condemned and were up in arms and wanted the Labour Party to take strong action against Anti-Semitism…Are the Conservative Muslims in the Conservative Party not entitled to be treated equally?”

“His threat of legal action under the Equalities Act is without foundation and now spent…..[T]he Act requires a claimant to [claim] in the County Court within six months of the event; that time has now expired…Arif's accusations are having a detrimental effect on the morale and commitment of local Party members and is a financial drain on our local resources. His readmittance to the Party would be extremely prejudicial to the members of the Executive Council and fuel sectarian conflict within the local Party.”

“The Executive remains extremely concerned that [the Claimant] continues to articulate a sectarian polemic and slanderous narrative of Islamophobia and racism, against the Party and membership, which will bring the Party into disrepute….[It is] racist, inflammatory and provokes sectarian conflict within…a multicultural community and must be stopped. Members of the Pakistani and Indian communities have observed [it] reflects Third World cultural politics [and] is both divisive and corrosive. If…unchallenged, it will undermine the cohesion of the Federation, which …selects Council candidates on merit, from a wide variety of multi-cultural backgrounds…”

“During the election campaign I was shocked to learn from local Muslim community members the Conservative Party's current Councillor Mohammed Arif, was campaigning against his own part[y’s] selected candidate behind his back. I had a conversation with Sukhy Samra and enquired why the current Conservative Party Councillor was campaigning against his own party. Sukhy explained this was due to the fact he had lost his fight in the selection process. Myself and a colleague from Walsall Helping Hands, had meeting a with Mohammed Arif to establish why this was happening. This was also followed by a meeting with Sukhy Samra. We tried to resolve the issue between Ex-Councillor Mohammed Arif and Sukhy Samra. Sukhy Samra informed us he had no issues with the Ex-Councillor Mohammed Arif. He stated he was not clear as to why Mohammed Arif was campaigning against own party. Sukhy stated he was more than willing to sit with Mr Arif to resolve any issues he had either against him. My colleague, Mehboob Matloob and I, personally contacted Ex-Councillor Mohammed Arif, in the second week of April 2016, on two separate occasions to discuss this matter with him and to try and resolve the issue. Instead of helping to resolve the matter, the Ex- Councillor Mohammed Arif, enquired as to why we were assisting Sukhy Samra, as he was a racist and against Muslims. We informed the Ex-Councillor Mohammed Arif, that in our current relations with Mr Samra, we had not observed any such behaviours or attitudes. When we spoke with Sukhy Samra about the discontentment, he informed us he was willing to do anything in order to keep the party united. He asked us to inform Arif; if he stopped what he was doing he would stand shoulder to with him at the next election and support him as much as he could. My colleague and I, on two separate occasions tried to reason with Ex-Councillor Mohammed Arif. Unfortunately, this was to no avail as Ex-Councillor Mohammed Arif informed us he was not willing to work with Sukhy Samra at any price.”

“We pointed out to the parties that we could not find anywhere in the papers or evidence before us anything to show [the 14-day notice of evidence rule] had been complied with in terms of providing to Mr Arif by 16 June 2016 at the latest the written evidence relied on in support of the motion. We invited Mr Samra to point us to any relevant document but he was unable to do so. He asked for a further adjournment to give the Federation time to locate such a document, but we declined ….The four anonymous witness statements before the Executive on 30 June 2016 were dated either 27 or 28 June….. We therefore recommend to the Board that the appeal be allowed and the Executive Council’s decision of 30 June 2016 be set aside, with the consequence that Mr Arif’s membership of the Party be re-instated. We wish to make clear that we make no findings on the substantive cases of either the Federation or Mr Arif. It is not necessary for us to do so.”

“SS outlined that the Federation had been put in a difficult position once again by the [national Party] and now had two options 1. To wait for the above decision, or 2. To initiate proceedings against Mr Arif again and to ensure that Sch.7 is adhered to and documented for any future appeals. A long discussion took place and members agreed that we should proceed in issuing proceedings again as [he] still had serious allegations to answer, plus he has also been prolific on social media sharing and posting anti-conservatism. John Baker [said Mr] Arif had circumvented the Federation at every opportunity, contrary to the Constitution of the Conservative Party. Members all agreed that as we know what the Party is going to do, then we should proceed with serving Arif with the papers correctly this time to ensure the process is fully followed. The members of the Executive voted unanimously to initiate proceedings again, SS did not vote.”

“…[On] 13"" September, the [Appeal] Committee advised your suspension from the Conservative Party was not carried out fully in accordance with the rules of the Conservative Party by the Walsall Conservative Federation. In particular, proper notice was not given in accordance with Schedule 7A, 3.6 (ii) Rules. Accordingly, the Executive Council of Walsall Conservative Federation hereby gives notice that it will consider the suspension of your Membership of the Conservative Party for the following reasons: Officers of the Association have carried out an investigation and determined that you Mohammad Arif actively campaigned against the Conservative Party candidate(s) in the May 2016 local Election in the constituency of Walsall South. A number of local residents have independently come forward to report that you made derogatory comments about the Official Conservative Candidate in St Matthews and you encouraged Conservative supporters to vote for the Labour candidate. Active support of another political party and acting against the interest and objectives of the Conservative party is incompatible with your continued membership of the Walsall Conservative Federation. More recently, postings on your personal 'Twitter' social media account go beyond being free speech view points and by their multiple nature are anti-Conservative, inconsistent with objects of the Walsall Conservative Federation and aimed to show the Conservative Party in a bad light and bring it into disrepute. You will have an opportunity to be heard at the next meeting of the Executive Council when evidence in support of your suspension as detailed in the attached 'Appendix' will be presented. The meeting will be held on 24th October 2018 at 1930 hrs at the County Hotel, 45 Birmingham Road, Walsall WS1 2NG and will be chaired by an independent person. If you would like to attend, please let me know in advance of the meeting by no later than the 16th October 2018 and kindly forward any supporting evidence that you will be relying on and any, up to 3 witnesses….”

“Please now confirm as a matter of urgency that: • The Party will direct the Federation not to hold the planned meeting to consider suspending our client's Party membership until the Board has considered the appeal panel's recommendation to set aside the initial decision to expel him; and • In any event, the Board will refuse to confirm our client's expulsion as a member should such a decision be made by the Federation before the Board has convened and written to the Federation having considered the Panel's recommendation and given such directions as it subsequently sees fit. We look forward to hearing from you by 17 October at the latest. In the meantime, all of our clients' rights are fully reserved, including his right to rely on the Federation's present actions, and any inadequate response by the Party, as further acts of discrimination and victimisation against him. Our client hopes that Party will strongly consider putting the Federation into assisted status and take action to remove officers from the Party.”

“You will have seen a copy of a letter dated 12th October from Mr Arif's solicitors to the Party solicitors. You will know that the Chairman of the Panel which heard Mr Arif's appeal explained at the hearing that he would present the report of the Panel in time for the next Board meeting which was to be held on Monday 29th October. It happens that Monday 29th October is Budget Day and therefore the next meeting of the Board has been put back one week to Monday 5th November. I have now received the Panel's report from the Chairman, Dr Stafford, and I intend to place this before members of the Board of the Conservative Party for consideration on Monday 5th November. You will understand that I cannot let you see a copy of this before it has been seen by the Board, but I think I can tell you that it is a five page document which sets out the background to this matter and the reasons for the Panel's decision... I am puzzled as to why the Federation has chosen to re-instigate expulsion proceedings against Mr Arif without waiting to receive and consider the decision of the Board of the Party on the Panel's report and recommendations. Could you assist me please by providing me with an explanation? I would be most grateful to hear from you as soon as possible given the date which the Federation has chosen to consider Mr Arif's expulsion from membership again and the, understandably, urgent tone which his solicitors have adopted in their letter of 12th October. Whatever you think of Mr Arif's alleged conduct, may I respectfully suggest that it might be in the best of the interests of the Federation to await the outcome of the Board's consideration of the Panel report on 5th November and then take time to consider carefully the recommendations or directions of the Board, taking advice if necessary.”

“If you recall I made it clear that if the panel decided not to hear the matter on the day then we may be possibly back here in a few months because of the nature of the allegations against Mr Arif…. In addition…Mr Arif has continued to paint the Federation and more importantly the Party in a bad light and has been publicly claiming that he has been exonerated of any charges and therefore will be seeking legal retribution and damages. In light of this the Executive have rightly decided that the Federation must protect its integrity and with the knowledge of the Board's decision need to act now before any legal proceedings are issued. The Walsall Conservative Federation earnestly believes that Mr Arif has serious questions to answer regarding conduct and support of the Conservative Party before he is accepted back into the Conservative Party. I am happy to send you the evidence that has been sent to him which, may I also add, also includes significant new evidence Mr Arif has the opportunity to present his case and call witnesses, (something that he had previously complained of), he has been served the evidence within the rules and 'Natural Justice' has been adhered to, he should do the honourable thing and attend the meeting on the 24th, and further, he should cease and desists in bringing every issue to CCHQ. Finally, as a result of the decision not to proceed on the 13th September, this is reluctantly, once more, a local matter for the Federation to deal with and I request that we are therefore allowed to do so.”

“Mr Baker stated that one of the comments [i.e. post (1)] he himself had also made and had been quoted in the press. Members thought that odd items posted on social media may be regrettable but did not have a serious effect, however, several members spoke of the volume of negative stories in respect of the party, having an accumulative effect.”

“The Officers of the Federation may move before the Executive Council the suspension or termination of membership of the Federation of any member whose declared opinions or conduct shall, in their judgement, be inconsistent with the objects or financial well-being of the Federation or be likely to bring the Party into disrepute. Similarly, the Officers may move the refusal of membership of the Federation for the same reasons. Following such a motion, the Executive Council may by a majority vote suspend, terminate or refuse membership for the same reason.”

“The Executive Committee voted to refuse and/or suspend your membership of the Federation…in the belief that your declared opinions and conduct were, in their judgment, inconsistent with the objects of the Federation and were likely to bring the Party into disrepute.”

“101(1) An association (A) must not discriminate against a person (B) (a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding who to admit to membership; (b) as to the terms on which A is prepared to admit B to membership; (c) by not accepting B's application for membership. (2) An association (A) must not discriminate against a member (B) (a) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to a benefit, facility or service; (b) by depriving B of membership; (c) by varying B's terms of membership; (d) by subjecting B to any other detriment…. (5) An association (A) must not victimise a person (B) (a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding who to admit to membership; (b) as to the terms on which A is prepared to admit B to membership; (c) by not accepting B's application for membership. (6) An association (A) must not victimise a member (B) (a) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to a benefit, facility or service; (b) by depriving B of membership; (c) by varying B's terms of membership; (d) by subjecting B to any other detriment.”

“An ‘association’ is an association of persons (a) which has at least 25 members, and (b) admission to membership of which is regulated by the association's rules and involves a process of selection.”

“(1) Anything done by a person (A) in the course of A's employment must be treated as also done by the employer. (2) Anything done by an agent for a principal, with the authority of the principal, must be treated as also done by the principal. (3) It does not matter whether that thing is done with the employer's or principal's knowledge or approval. (4) In proceedings against A's employer (B) in respect of anything alleged to have been done by A in the course of A's employment it is a defence for B to show that B took all reasonable steps to prevent A (a) from doing that thing, or (b) from doing anything of that description.”

“11. [T]he principal will be liable wherever the agent discriminates in the course of carrying out the functions he is authorised to do. It is a moot point whether the common law would in any event impose liability in these circumstances. The scope of the principal’s liability for an agent at common law is not entirely clear, although it seems likely that he will be liable for certain tortious acts of the agent, such as misrepresentations, provided they are sufficiently closely related to the agent’s actual or apparent authority… Whether racial abuse would fall within that principle is problematic, but s.32(2) RRA removes the uncertainty which might otherwise exist…. 12….It follows that the act itself may be – and no doubt usually will be – without the principal’s knowledge or approval…Indeed, in the Equality Act 2010 s.109(3) expressly states that… 37…s.32(2) uses terms which the law employs when defining the scope of common law agency [and] there is no readily available, consistently understood broader meaning in the public domain which Parliament can reasonably be taken to have intended. Furthermore, none of the subsequent discrimination legislation, including the Equality Act itself, has sought to reformulate the principle in the light of the case law.”

“The editors of Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency suggest that agency may best be seen, not as a status, but as a description of a person while exercising the authority conferred by the principal to act on the principal’s behalf. Thus…an independent contractor may be an agent while exercising the authority conferred by the principal to act on behalf of the principal.”

“(1)..[P]roceedings on a claim within s.114 [i.e. to the County Court, as this is] may not be brought after the end of (a) the period of 6 months starting with the date of the act to which the claim relates, or (b) such other period as the County Court….thinks just and equitable…. (6) For the purposes of this section (a) conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period…”

“[T]he burden is on [the claimant] to prove, either by direct evidence or by inference from primary facts, that the numerous alleged incidents of discrimination are linked to one another and that they are evidence of a continuing discriminatory state of affairs covered by the concept of ‘an act extending over a period’.”

“The concepts of policy, rule, practice, scheme or regime in the authorities were given as examples of when an act extends over a period. They should not be treated as a complete and constricting statement of the indicia of ‘an act extending over a period’…The question is whether th[ere] is ‘an act extending over a period’, as distinct from a succession of unconnected or isolated specific acts for which time....begin[s] to run from [each] date.”

“(1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion. (2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief. (3)…(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.”

“54….[U]nlike Art.9…the [EqA] does not refer explicitly to discrimination on the grounds of the manifestation of a belief. However, …‘because of the complainant’s religion or belief’ must be read as extending to [it].…. 55…There will be cases where treatment complained of by the employee was ostensibly on the ground of conduct which manifested a religious or other belief but where it is found that the real reason was an animus against the belief in question. [T]he employer’s account [may be] disbelieved; [or it may be] the particular case impossible to see any basis for the objection other than… to the belief ..it manifests…. Neither kind of case is in truth a manifestation case at all, because the employer is motivated simply by the fact that the employee holds the belief. In a manifestation case proper the employer genuinely has no objection to the employee holding the belief and is motivated only by the conduct which constitutes its manifestation. Most claims of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief are likely to be genuine manifestation cases of this kind.”

“(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a combination of two relevant protected characteristics [including race and religion or belief], A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat a person who does not share either of those characteristics…. (3) For the purposes of establishing a contravention of this Act by virtue of subs (1), B need not show that A's treatment of B is direct discrimination because of each of the characteristics in the combination (taken separately)”

“..when the discrimination involves more than one protected characteristic and it is the unique combination of characteristics that results in discrimination, in such a way that they are completely inseparable. This often occurs as a result of stereotyped attitudes or prejudice relating to particular combinations of protected characteristics” s.14 EqA was clearly intended to adopt a model of ‘intersectional discrimination’ which is the academic phrase, though the section heading is simpler: ‘Combined discrimination: dual characteristics’. The Explanatory Note to s.14 says: “Previous legislation only allowed for claims alleging discrimination because of a single protected characteristic. This section allows those who have experienced less favourable treatment because of a combination of two relevant protected characteristics to bring a direct discrimination claim, such as where the single-strand approach may not succeed.”

“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”

“[The RRA] requires it to be shown that the claimant has been treated by the person against whom the discrimination is alleged less favourably than that person treats or would have treated another. In deciding that issue, the conduct of a hypothetical reasonable employer is irrelevant. The alleged discriminator may or may not be a reasonable employer. If he is not a reasonable employer, he might well have treated another employee in just the same unsatisfactory way as he treated the complainant, in which case he would not have treated the complainant 'less favourably'…”

“On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13…there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.”

“134. [T]he relevant circumstances…are those…the alleged discriminator takes into account when deciding to treat the [complainant] as he does or when deciding to treat the [comparator] as he treats, or would treat, him… 136 The relevant circumstances….cannot be confined, however, to those.. That would exclude many cases of discrimination from protection… The comparison runs….in both directions. So, circumstances which the alleged discriminator takes into account or would take into account in the case of the…comparator are relevant if they were also present, though not taken into account, in the case of the [complainant].”

“36…(1) The test for discrimination involves a comparison between the treatment of the complainant and another person (the ‘statutory comparator’) actual or hypothetical, who is not of the same sex or racial group, as the case may be. (2) The comparison requires that whether the statutory comparator is actual or hypothetical, the relevant circumstances in either case should be (or be assumed to be) the same as, or not materially different from, those of the complainant: s.3(4). (3) The treatment of a person who does not qualify as a statutory comparator (because the circumstances are in some material respect different) may nevertheless be evidence from which a tribunal may infer how a hypothetical statutory comparator would have been treated… This is an ordinary question of relevance, which depends upon degree of the similarity of the circumstances of the person in question (the ‘evidential comparator’) to those of the complainant and all the other evidence in the case. 37 It is probably uncommon to find a real person who qualifies..as a statutory comparator….[T]he question of whether the differences between the circumstances of the complainant and those of the putative statutory comparator are ‘materially different’ is often likely to be disputed. In most cases, however, it will be unnecessary for the tribunal to resolve this dispute because it should be able, by treating the putative comparator as an evidential comparator and having due regard to the alleged differences in circumstances and other evidence, to form a view on how the employer would have treated a hypothetical person who was a true statutory comparator. If the tribunal is able to conclude the respondent would have treated [them] more favourably on racial grounds, it would be well advised to avoid deciding whether any actual person was a statutory comparator.”

“11…may sometimes be able to avoid arid and confusing disputes about the identification of the appropriate comparator by concentrating primarily on why the claimant was treated as she was. Was it on the proscribed ground [alleged] in the application. That will call for an examination of all the facts of the case. Or was it for some other reason? If the latter, the application fails. If the former, there will be usually be no difficulty in deciding whether the treatment, afforded to the claimant on the proscribed ground, was less favourable than was or would have been afforded to others. 12…There will be cases where it is convenient to decide the less-favourable treatment issue first. But…tribunals may find it helpful to consider whether they should postpone determining the less favourable treatment issue until after they have decided why the treatment was afforded….”

“[D]irect discrimination because of a protected characteristic (s.13 EA 2010) encompasses not only cases where the complainant affected by discrimination has the protected characteristic in question, but also where the discriminator perceives the complainant has the characteristic, or in some other way associates the complainant with the…characteristic. This can occur, for example, where a complainant is discriminated against because of caring responsibility for a person with a protected characteristic such as disability (as happened in…. EBR Attridge LLP v Coleman [2010] ICR 242), or where the complainant is treated detrimentally because it is thought that she or he has a particular protected characteristic even if they do not (English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd [2009] IRLR 206 (CA). What is required is that the protected characteristic is a ground for the treatment in question. Terms such as ‘associative discrimination’ and ‘discrimination by perception’ are not a critical part of the analysis. What matters in the former is whether the treatment of the complainant was done because of the protected characteristic of the other person. In a case of perceived discrimination, the correct comparator is someone who is not perceived to have that protected characteristic: Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary v Coffey [2020] ICR 145. In Coffey the EAT held that where a claimant is treated less favourably on the basis of a mistaken perception that she was disabled, the correct hypothetical comparator was a person who was not perceived to be disabled and who had the same abilities as the claimant.

“46…I have great difficulty in understanding the distinction. How can one form a view that a problem is ‘associated with the Pakistani community’ but reach that view uninfluenced by ‘the racial makeup of that community’? Its racial make-up is what enables it to be described as a Pakistani community. The only meaning which I can ascribe to the distinction is that it would be acceptable for the Labour Party to discriminate against a Pakistani candidate if they held no racist views about Pakistanis but thought that it was better not to have a Pakistani candidate because the electorate would identify ‘the problem’ with the Pakistani community. 47 If that is what the distinction means, it seems to me unacceptable. It is nothing more than the old plea that you have nothing against employing a black person but the customers would not like it. In essence it is a defence of justification based on political expediency. It may salvage the purity of the personal motives…but it does not in my opinion satisfy the terms of the [RRA] which does not allow any justification for ‘direct’ discrimination. It simply says that one shall not discriminate on racial grounds.”

“As regards direct discrimination, it is now well-established that a person may be less favourably treated ‘on the grounds of’ a protected characteristic either if the act complained of is inherently discriminatory (eg the imposition of an age limit) or if the characteristic in question influenced the ‘mental processes’ of the putative discriminator, whether consciously or unconsciously, to any significant extent…..”

“[O]n a complaint against an employer under s.4(1)(a) it matters not that different employees were involved at different stages, one employee acting in a racially discriminatory or victimising fashion and the other not. The acts of both are treated as done by the respondent employer. So, if the employee who operated the employer's interviewing arrangements did so in a discriminatory manner…s.4(l)(a) is satisfied even though the employee who set up the arrangements acted in a wholly non-discriminatory fashion.”

“(1) By making an adverse report about C, Y subjects her to a detriment… (2) If in making the report Y was motivated by C’s age his act constitutes [direct] discrimination…(3) If that discriminatory act was done in the course of Y’s employment…then by virtue of [equivalent of s.109(1) EqA] it would be treated as E’s act; and accordingly E would be liable (unless he could rely on the ‘reasonable steps’ defence). (4) Y would also be liable for his own act by virtue of [the equivalent of s.110 EqA]; (5) The losses caused to C by her dismissal could be claimed for as part of the compensation for Y’s discriminatory act, as they would have been caused or contributed to by that act and would not (at least normally) be too remote.”

“In a case where the 2010 Act (or its predecessors), and other analogous legislation, affords protection to particular kinds of conduct by an employee, for example, in victimisation or whistleblowing cases, for making complaints of discrimination or making protected disclosures, the case law recognises that it may be necessary to decide whether the real cause of the treatment is the conduct itself or is some properly separable feature of it. This is sometimes referred to as ‘the separability principle’. This line of authority is potentially applicable in a (true) manifestation case, since in such a case the court is concerned (untypically for a direct discrimination claim) with a motivation based not on the possession of the protected characteristic but particular conduct on the part of the employee..”

“33. The four separate sets of circumstances set out in…(a)–(d) must be looked at as a whole. (a) is concerned with a claimant (A) who has brought proceedings against the discriminator (‘victimiser’) or any other person under the Act and is then victimised for doing so…..Equally, a person who gives evidence or information in connection with tribunal proceedings brought by A against their employer who is himself then victimised by the employer by reason that he has given evidence or information in connection with those proceedings has a claim under s.2(1)(b)..[I]t is unnecessary that that person gives evidence or information in support of A’s case. It is enough that it is ‘in connection with A’s proceedings. However, …proceedings means tribunal [not internal] proceedings…(d) logically comes next. It covers an allegation the discriminator has committed a contravention of the act….(c) is a ‘catchall’….” 35….(c)…is necessarily wider than the more restricted circumstances set out in…(a), (b) and (d). Although Ms Kirby had not [done (a), (b) or (d]… it was not necessary for her to show any of those things for the purposes of (c).

“The allegation relied on need not state explicitly that an act of discrimination has occurred…[but] should have asserted facts capable of amounting in law to an act of discrimination by an employer…The facts alleged by the complaint…were incapable in law of amounting to an act of discrimination by the commissioner.. because the alleged perpetrator was not acting in the course of his employment….”

“The complaint must be of conduct which interferes with a characteristic protected by the Act, such as race, not to a matter not protected by the Act, such as public interest disclosure. The only relevant [one] asserted here was …race….[I]t is not necessary that the complaint referred to race using that very word. But there must be something sufficient about the complaint to show that it is a complaint to which at least potentially the Act applies.”

“Although victimisation has a ring of conscious targeting, this is an insufficient basis for excluding cases of unrecognised prejudice from the scope of s.2. Such an exclusion would partially undermine the protection s.2 seeks to give those who have sought to rely on the Act or been involved in the operation of the Act in other ways.”

“’…[B]y reason that’ does not raise…causation as that expression is usually understood….[I explained] in Nagarajan….the phrases ‘on racial grounds’ and ‘by reason that’ denote a different exercise: why did the alleged discriminator act as he did? What, consciously or unconsciously, was his reason ? Unlike causation, this is a subjective test. Causation is a legal conclusion. The reason why a person acted as he did is a question of fact.”

“Employees who bring complaints often do so in ways that are, viewed objectively, unreasonable. It would certainly be contrary to the policy of the anti-victimisation provisions if employers were able to take steps against employees simply because in making a complaint they had, say, used intemperate language or made inaccurate statements. An employer who purports to object to ‘ordinary’ unreasonable behaviour of that kind should be treated as objecting to the complaint itself, and we expect tribunals to be slow to recognise a distinction between the complaint and the way it is made save in clear cases. But the fact that the distinction may be illegitimately made in some cases does not mean that it is wrong in principle…”

“[A]ny…detrimental act…in response to a complaint of discrimination does not constitute victimisation if the reason for it was not the complaint as such but some feature of it which can properly be treated as separable.”

“[T]he ‘separability principle’ is not a rule of law or a basis for deeming an employer’s reason to be anything other than the facts disclose it to be. It is simply a label that identifies what may in a particular case be a necessary step in the process of determining what as a matter of fact was the real reason for impugned treatment. Once the reasons for particular treatment have been identified by the fact-finding tribunal, it must evaluate whether the reasons so identified are separate from the protected disclosure, or whether they are so closely connected with it that a distinction cannot fairly and sensibly be drawn. Were this exercise not permissible, the effect would be that whistle-blowers would have immunity for behaviour or conduct related to the making of a protected disclosure no matter how bad, and employers would be obliged to ensure that they are not adversely treated, again no matter how bad the associated behaviour or conduct.”

“[What] has been called the ‘honest and reasonable employer’ defence is not found in the legislation itself’ [and]…seems to place a somewhat uncomfortable and unclear meaning on the words ‘by reason that’.”

“The employer should reflect on how the way he wishes to conduct himself will be seen through the eyes of the employee – how would she be likely to react if she were to be treated in that way? He is entitled to bear in mind that an unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to ‘detriment’...But he …must avoid doing anything that might make a reasonable employee feel that she is being unduly pressurised to concede her claim.”

“41..[I]n circumstances where there was…no established procedure, the appellant would have to demonstrate that there was something unreasonable or unfair about the process before the claim could possibly succeed… 48 [But]..if the appellant were able to establish that she had been treated less favourably in the way in which…procedures were applied and the reason was [she had]…lodged a sex discrimination claim, she would have a legitimate sense of injustice which would in principle sound in damages. The fact that the outcome of the procedure would not have changed will be relevant to any assessment of any compensation, but it does not of itself defeat the substantive victimisation discrimination claim.”

“(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)…(2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.”

“[Discrimination]..presents special problems of proof for complainants as those who discriminate on the grounds of race or gender do not in general advertise their prejudices: indeed, they may not even be aware of them.” (1) The first iteration was not a shifting burden of proof at all, but inference from a prima facie case. In Zafar, Lord Browne-Wilkinson endorsed the guidelines of Neill LJ in King v GB China Centre [1991] IRR 513 (CA) which stressed, that if there was a difference of treatment and a difference of race or sex, the tribunal would look to the employer for an explanation, which if unforthcoming or inadequate would mean the tribunal ‘could’ infer discrimination. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said that was preferable to his own earlier formulation in the EAT the tribunal ‘should’ infer discrimination. (2) Shortly afterwards due to EU Directives, in 2001 the SDA and in 2003 the RRA (and new other equality legislation e.g. religion and belief) included: “Where, on the hearing of the complaint, the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could, apart from this section, conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the respondent…has committed an act of discrimination against the complainant….the tribunal shall uphold the complaint unless the respondent proves that he did not [or] is not to be treated as having committed, that act.”

“(1)…[I]t is for the claimant…to prove on the balance of probabilities facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent has committed an act of discrimination against the claimant which is unlawful…is to be treated as having been committed against the claimant. These are referred to below as ‘such facts’. (2) If the claimant does not prove such facts he or she will fail. (3)…[I]n deciding whether the claimant has proved such facts that it is unusual to find direct evidence of sex discrimination. Few employers would be prepared to admit such discrimination, even to themselves. In some cases, the discrimination will not be an intention but merely based on the assumption that ‘he or she would not have fitted in’. (4) In deciding whether the claimant has proved such facts, it is important to remember that the outcome at this stage of the analysis by the tribunal will therefore usually depend on what inferences it is proper to draw from the primary facts found by the tribunal. (5) It is important to note the word ‘could’…. At this stage the tribunal does not have to reach a definitive determination that such facts would lead it to the conclusion that there was an act of unlawful discrimination. At this stage a tribunal is looking at the primary facts before it to see what inferences of secondary fact could be drawn from them. (6) In considering what inferences or conclusions can be drawn from the primary facts, the tribunal must assume that there is no adequate explanation for those facts…. (9) Where the claimant has proved facts from which conclusions could be drawn that the respondent has treated the claimant less favourably on the ground of sex, then the burden of proof moves to the respondent. (10) It is then for the respondent to prove that he did not commit, or as the case may be, is not to be treated as having committed, that act. (11) To discharge that burden, it is necessary for the respondent to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever on the grounds of sex, since ‘no discrimination whatsoever’ is compatible with the [EU] Burden of Proof Directive. (12) That requires a tribunal to assess not merely whether the respondent has proved an explanation for the facts from which such inferences can be drawn, but further that it is adequate to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that sex was not a ground for the treatment… (13) Since the facts necessary to prove an explanation would normally be in the possession of the respondent, a tribunal would normally expect cogent evidence to discharge that burden of proof….”

“s.63A SDA does not expressly or impliedly prevent the tribunal at the first stage from hearing, accepting or drawing inferences from evidence by the respondent disputing and rebutting the complainant’s evidence of discrimination. The respondent may adduce evidence at the first stage to show the acts which are alleged to be discriminatory never happened; or that, if they did, they were not less favourable treatment of the complainant; or that the comparators chosen by the complainant or the situations with which comparisons are made are not truly like the complainant or the situation of the complainant; or that, even if there has been less favourable treatment of the complainant, it was not on the ground of her sex..”

“The assumption at th[e first] stage…is simply that there is no adequate explanation. There is no assumption as to whether or not a prima facie case has been established…[T]he prima facie case must be proved, and it is for the claimant to discharge that burden.”

“‘… The obligation for the employer to provide an explanation once the prima facie case has been established, strongly suggests that he is expected to provide a reason for the treatment. An explanation is just that; the employer must explain. Why has he done what could be considered to be a racially discriminatory act ? It is not the language one would expect to describe facts that he may adduce to counter or put into context the evidence adduced by the claimant.” (Emphasis in original)

“If and when [the burden of proof shifts], the tribunal has to decide whether or not the respondent has proved that he has not committed...discrimination. If the tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for his treatment of the complainant as an adequate explanation, the respondent will have discharged the burden of proof. If the respondent does not discharge the burden of proof, the complainant ‘shall’ succeed.”

“We doubt if Lord Nicholls’ wording [in Nagarajan of ‘significant influence’ is in substance different from the [EU] ‘no discrimination whatsoever’ formula. A ‘significant’ influence is an influence which is more than trivial. We find it hard to believe that the principle of equal treatment would be breached by the merely trivial.”

“It is important not to make too much of the role of the burden of proof provisions. They will require careful attention where there is room for doubt as to the facts necessary to establish discrimination. But they have nothing to offer where the tribunal is in a position to make positive findings on the evidence one way or the other.”

“The [Mort Report] Panel accepted the evidence from Councillor Arif on behalf of the 77. He was the leader of this special interest group, financed the new members and was instrumental in composing the Petition letter. Arif [was not a witness at the expulsion hearing] and actively attempted to conceal his involvement from the Executive…. Although being of Pakistani Islamic heritage or a member of a mosque, was not in itself a factor in the decision process, it added to the evidence of affiliation between members of the group…Arif was not charged as he did not sign the petition and the members of his group were not prepared to…implicate him. Although he gave evidence to the Panel as one of the principal witnesses, the report is silent on his.. involvement… There can be no doubt that this was a sectarian Trojan horse attempt to take control of the Executive.”

“In August 2014 we identified an Islamic group of Pakistani heritage who attempted to remove the Executive and take control of the Association….The Association Council averted this Trojan Horse attempt to subvert the legitimate procedures of the party….”

‘Members of the Islamic community alerted us to this process….” (2) Cllr Washbrook did not have to articulate the issue in faith and race terms in his correspondence to the national Party. He could simply have said there was an attempted takeover (or ‘entryism’ as Carys Parry from the Regional Party said to Ms McColgan KC). But Cllr Washbrook chose to describe it repeatedly as a ‘Pakistani Islamic group’ (or ‘clique’) and a ‘Trojan Horse’

‘I am concerned in identifying this group in terms of racial or religious profile for fear of being labelled as racialist or not being PC. However, I would be negligent in my duty as Chairman of the Association to ignore the evidence’. (3) Moreover, Cllr Washbrook believed (as I found, wrongly), the Claimant was ‘the leader of [this] special interest group, financed the new members and was instrumental in composing the Petition letter’

“I find on the balance of probabilities that (unbeknownst to the rest of the Approvals Committee, including Mr Baker, Mr Letts and Mr Sohal), this was precisely what Cllr Washbrook wanted to achieve. Whilst he clearly had an animus against the Claimant because he perceived him to be the leader of the ‘Pakistani Islamic clique’ that tried to oust the Executive, as he said in August 2015, the Claimant was not ‘charged’ as he did not sign the petition and ‘members of his group’ (as Cllr Washbrook put it) did not implicate him. So, Cllr Washbrook knew he could not confront the Claimant about the petition itself. Instead, I find on the balance of probabilities that in seeking to discredit him, Cllr Washbrook not only asked ‘the Cannabis question’ which he knew was ‘old news’. He also asked questions intended to ‘frame’ (in many senses of the word) the Claimant as having a ‘sectarian political agenda’. ‘The Gaza question’ deliberately challenged the Claimant’s publicly-quoted stance that issue ‘crossed party and religious lines’. Moreover, ‘the Kashmir question’ presented the Claimant as sectarian in a ‘Pakistan vs India’ sense, just as Mr Samra had presented him in August as ‘supporting a narrow section of the Pakistani population’ in his email he deliberately failed to disclose. I do not go so far as to say the two of them ‘hatched a plan’ together, but Mr Samra’s view of the Claimant clearly aligned with that of Cllr Washbrook and it is notable Mr Sohal thought Mr Samra was not present at the approval meeting as he and the Claimant had ‘bad blood’. Yet I accept Mr Sohal, Mr Baker and Mr Letts did not share the same animus as Cllr Washbrook and Mr Samra. These factual findings are important to the discrimination claim as I discuss later.”

“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others”

“The object of the [RRA] is to ensure that each person is treated as an individual and not assumed to be like other members of the group.”

“As Hartmann J said in the High Court of Hong Kong in a regularly quoted sentence in EOC v Director of Education [2001] 2 HKLRD 690 , para 86, ‘what may be true of a group may not be true of a significant number of individuals within that group’. It is not legitimate to apply a stereotype and [assume] Roma may be making false claims and that for that reason their claims require more intensive investigation. An officer who does so has …‘applied a stereotype; though one which may very likely be true’. The point is that it may not be true, and it is in law discriminatory to subject all applicants from Roma to longer and more intensive questioning because so many of them have been known in the past to merit such treatment.”

“Electoral fraud…is prevalent in Pakistan and regrettably there are members of our community who derive from this heritage that believe they can emulate those practices here in UK’. (my italics) Cllr Washbrook did not say this of all Pakistani-origin people in the UK – he plainly thought it only applied to some, but it is still a racial stereotype (Higgs/Roma Rights). He admitted in writing an unevidenced sweeping stereotype about Pakistan which I find reinforced his ‘racial framing’ of what he thought was the Claimant’s ‘Pakistani Islamic clique’ as ‘Bad Pakistanis, rather than ‘Good Pakistanis’ like the other Pakistani-origin candidates. (3) Thirdly, whilst there was not ‘exact correspondence’ (Preddy) between the questions Cllr Washbrook asked and the Claimant’s Pakistani national origin, it is clear his ‘Kashmir question’ was connected: “As a Councillor and cabinet member, you organised a meeting about Kashmir at Town Hall….to organise [a] march for Kashmir ..outside Indian High Commission in London to raise concerns about Indian soldiers killing innocent Kashmiri men and women in occupied Kashmir by India..Can you comment on how this activity might be perceived and interpreted by the electorate locally and nationally ?”

“[If what is meant is] it would be acceptable…to discriminate against a Pakistani candidate if they held no racist views about Pakistanis, but thought that it was better not to have a Pakistani candidate because the electorate would identify ‘the problem’ with the Pakistani community …[that] seems to me unacceptable. It is nothing more than the old plea that you have nothing against employing a black person, but the customers would not like it. In essence it is a defence of justification based on political expediency. It may salvage the purity of..personal motives…but it does not…satisfy the terms of the [RRA] which does not allow any justification for ‘direct’ discrimination. It simply says that one shall not discriminate on racial grounds.”

“I believe that the questions I was asked by the selection committee were deliberately unfair and designed to prejudice the vote against me. I do not believe that the questions selected for other candidates were similar in nature or contained elements of race and religion as mine did. I would therefore question the objectivity and fairness of the author of the questions and would like disclosure of the questions put to other candidates….”

‘making an allegation (whether or not express) that A has contravened the Act’

“The crucial point is that Mr Gandham’s contemporaneous email, even after he had found the Samra Club, still pressed for a postal vote; and despite the Claimant’s suspicions I do not accept that Mr Gandham did so to fix the vote in some way. If Mr Gandham had chosen The Samra Club simply to favour Mr Samra, he would not have continued to press for a postal vote which would have been more neutral. I therefore find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Gandham chose the Samra Club principally because he was instructed to arrange an attended meeting – against his better judgment – and The Samra Club was the only available venue. In short, I accept Mr Gandham’s evidence that he had to organise a contentious meeting in a large venue with very little notice by the end of March, had tried to find a different venue than the Samra Club but none were available, but expected the regional Party staff to run the meeting properly.”

“(10) It is then for the respondent to prove that he did not commit, or as the case may be, is not to be treated as having committed, that act. (11) To discharge that burden, it is necessary for the respondent to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever on the grounds of sex, since ‘no discrimination whatsoever’ is compatible with the [EU] Burden of Proof Directive. (12) That requires a tribunal to assess not merely whether the respondent has proved an explanation for the facts from which such inferences can be drawn, but further that it is adequate to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities [race/religion] was not a ground for the treatment… (13) Since the facts necessary to prove an explanation would normally be in the possession of the respondent, a tribunal would normally expect cogent evidence to discharge that burden of proof….”

“On the night anyone who was on the list and confirmed their name and address was allowed in. Members who had a valid official membership card but weren’t on the list were checked against the electoral register and if they were registered in the Ward they were allowed in. Anyone who was not on the membership list and no membership card were not permitted to enter. Some members did go home and return with their cards. It is incredibly difficult to check out these members as a number have names that appear differently on the register to their membership cards and driving licence / passports. Suki Samra’s mother was not permitted to enter because she had no membership card and wasn’t on the list. When she returned with her card it was noted her name appears differently on the membership list and the electoral roll. I worked on the premise that wherever possible we would allow people to attend if they were able to prove that they were valid members of the Association. We did our best in very trying circumstances to ensure the signing in of members was done in accordance with the rules.”

“I attended [the selection]. It was clear from the outset that voters on the losing side, would not be voting in the election for the [winner].”

“They have damaged the image of the Conservative Party in the community by portraying the Party as being anti-Muslim and racist.”

“[A] disciplinary investigation [of the Claimant’s] false and uncorroborated accusations of religious discrimination by the local panel. This resulted in a prolonged, drawn out and totally unnecessary investigation which found no evidence of religious discrimination...”

“…wrote directly to the Party Chairman with an inaccurate version of events and an uncorroborated accusation of Islamophobia.”

“I see no merit in allowing the current unresolved accusations to fester for another year without resolution. These last 8 months have shown it will only encourage further email complaints, lobbying and infighting. The longer we leave it the harder it will be to resolve.”

‘It was clear from the outset that voters on the losing side, would not be voting in the election for the [winner]’

“Officers of the Association have carried out an investigation and determined that you Mohammad Arif, actively campaigned against the Conservative Party candidate in the May 2016 local Election in the constituency of Walsall South. A number of local residents have independently come forward to report that you made derogatory comments about the Official Conservative Candidate in St Matthews and you encouraged Conservative supporters to vote for the Labour candidate.”

“[T]here will in principle be cases where an employer has dismissed an employee (or subjected him to some other detriment) in response to the doing of a protected act (say, a complaint of discrimination) but where he can, as a matter of common sense and common justice, say that the reason for the dismissal was not the complaint as such but some feature of it which can properly be treated as separable. The most straightforward example is where the reason relied on is the manner of the complaint. Take the case of an employee who makes, in good faith, a complaint of discrimination but couches it in terms of violent racial abuse of the manager alleged to be responsible; or who accompanies a genuine complaint with threats of violence; or who insists on making it by ringing the managing director at home at 3 am. In such cases it is neither artificial nor contrary to the policy of the anti-victimisation provisions for the employer to say ‘I am taking action against you not because you have complained of discrimination but because of the way in which you did it’. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if those provisions gave employees absolute immunity in respect of anything said or done in the context of a protected complaint….Of course such a line of argument is capable of abuse. Employees who bring complaints often do so in ways that are, viewed objectively, unreasonable. It would certainly be contrary to the policy of the anti-victimisation provisions if employers were able to take steps against employees simply because in making a complaint they had, say, used intemperate language or made inaccurate statements. An employer who purports to object to ‘ordinary’ unreasonable behaviour of that kind should be treated as objecting to the complaint itself and we would expect tribunals to be slow to recognise a distinction between the complaint and the way it is made save in clear cases. But the fact that the distinction may be illegitimately made in some cases does not mean that it is wrong in principle.”

‘Refusing in June 2016 to suspend the disciplinary investigation and hearing on the instructions of the national Party pending an investigation’

“I believe it would be in the best interest of the Party to bring this matter to an early conclusion. I see no merit in allowing the current unresolved accusations to fester….without resolution. These last 8 months have shown it will only encourage further email complaints, lobbying and infighting… This is a situation has been totally created by Arif. All he had to do is stay silent and inactive until after the election. [Y]ou are asking for…the Federation to condone his actions…in breach of the Constitution and Party rules. [H]e was responsible in effecting our defeat in St Matthews…”

“[A] disciplinary investigation [of the Claimant’s] false and uncorroborated accusations of religious discrimination by the local panel. This resulted in a prolonged, drawn out and totally unnecessary investigation which found no evidence of religious discrimination...”

“[The] Claimant declined to attend the hearing on 30th June 2016, at which he and Mr Mohammed Azam (also Muslim) were purportedly expelled from the Party. Other than the Chair, the Executive Council which expelled him was composed of Federation members who had dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the decision not to approve him as a candidate. In reaching its decision to expel the Claimant, the Federation relied on written witness evidence that was fabricated.”

“The Claimant’s expulsion was confirmed by a letter by Cllr Washbrook dated 1st July 2016. The letter contained no reasons. It stated that the Claimant had been expelled from the Party and all Associations. Pursuant to ss.54-59 of the Party’s Constitution…the Federation was not entitled to expel the Claimant from membership of the Federation or the Party without first seeking the confirmation of the Party Board.”

“The Federation genuinely sought at all times to act in accordance with [its] Rules and the Party Constitution. Its decision was reached having regard to and in the absence of engagement from the Claimant. [He] was entitled to appeal, which he duly did. Save as above para 31 is not admitted”

‘relying on fabricated evidence at the appeal hearings on 9 November 2017 and 13 September 2018’

“[The Claimant] continues to spread slander and paint the party both locally and nationally in a bad light. His sole basis has been ‘Islamophobia’, [but] he has no basis, the Federation is diverse, we have Councillors [and candidates] of all faiths…and communities.”

“I have been a loyal member of the Conservative Party for 25 years and will not be chased out by a bunch of Islamophobes, bullies and those who deny others natural justice. The continued lack of action by the Party Board could reasonably infer that it condones Islamophobia but as a Party we rightly condemned and were up in arms and wanted the Labour Party to take strong action against Anti-Semitism…Are the Conservative Muslims in the Conservative Party not entitled to be treated equally?”

“We look forward to hearing from you by 17 October at the latest. In the meantime, all of our clients' rights are fully reserved, including his right to rely on the Federation's present actions, and any inadequate response by the Party, as further acts of discrimination and victimisation against him.”

“Mr Arif has continued to paint the Federation and more importantly the Party in a bad light and has been publicly claiming that he has been exonerated of any charges and therefore will be seeking legal retribution and damages. In light of this, the Executive have rightly decided that the Federation must protect its integrity and with the knowledge of the Board's decision need to act now before any legal proceedings are issued….”

“The social media posts relied upon were attached to the letter of 8th October 2018 and consisted in large part…[of] press reports relating to allegations of Islamophobia within the Conservative Party. These social media posts were not capable of constituting a proper basis for expulsion..”

“The appeal be allowed and the Executive Council’s decision of 30th June 2016 be set aside, with the consequence that Mr Arif’s membership of the Party be re-instated.”

“The Executive remains extremely concerned that [the Claimant] continues to articulate a sectarian polemic and slanderous narrative of Islamophobia and racism, against the Party and membership, which will bring the Party into disrepute...[It is] racist, inflammatory and provokes sectarian conflict”

‘conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period’