This page is published in the public interest and concerns a previous employment tribunal hearing for unfair dismissal as a result of whistleblowing in Hampshire Constabulary.
Setting the record straight
Part 1 - Background
I will publish this as a series of articles probably weekly as I understand it is probably too much to take in at one time, you will see how the tribunal operates and how judges can take advantage of litigants in person. For those with a disability 'reasonable adjustments' may be familiar, in my case these were ignored to ensure the case finished on time and it will become apparent how the Judge had adopted a mindset and would strong that evidence was.
I was a litigant in person at the time due to the Police Federation failing to provide assistance, I was ill with a disability and presented my own case which lasted for 2 weeks and 3 days.
The outcome was perverse where I appear to have lost on a technicality and I believe that the outcome was directly related to my disclosure concerning police corruption especially with regards to Paedophilia in Hampshire.
You will hear of serious disclosure issues amounting to criminal acts, manipulation of the Judge by the force and an unusual situation where the Judge even went on a course with the Chief Constable before the case had even finished. Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan was the main witness against me in the case.
The case was effectively held in camera at Havant employment tribunal due to the circumstances and a member of the public wrote to the employment judge to complain which; appeared to have been ignored.
I subsequently appealled to the EAT and had the assistance of a pro bono barrister, the barrister was effectively closed down by the Judge when she mentioned Jimmy Saville, a very relevant provable lie told by the original employment judge in the judgment was simply struck out when I provided evidence of this.
I lost the appeal which was not unexpected, was too ill and did not have the funds to pursue the matter to the court of appeal.
There has been much comment especially by lawyers on the outcome of the published appeal to the EAT which I feel has acted as a deterrant to officers coming forward so it is necessary to set the record straight.
This was a perverse decision and hopefully the information I will provide will help officers avoid the pitfalls of dealing with such serious matters via the employment tribunal.
I am publishing this in the public interest along with irrefutable evidence to raise awareness of the truth of the conduct of this employment tribunal case and how the judiciary deal with litigants in person and those with a disability.
Since this case, I have been trying to deal with the criminal matters which came to light with regards to disclosure and perjury in the original employment tribunal case.
I presently have two cases, one against the force and one against the PCC who were both respondents in the original case for post employment victimisation. Initial indications are that the culture has not changed so watch this space.
At present, despite representations, two Southampton employment tribunal judges seem intent on keeping these matters in house at Southampton whilst I have requested as a reasonable adjustment and for other valid reasons that the cases are transferred to another region.
We have to remember sometimes that Judges are human and like anyone else can have their impartiality affected when the force has become so adept at discrediting those who dare challenge them.