Judicial immunity does not bar a police offi cer dismissed from her job by a police misconduct panel from bringing a claim in an employment tribunal, the Supreme Court has held.
The landmark judgment, P v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 65, concerns the directly eff ective right of police offi cers under EU law to have the principle of equal treatment in relation to employment and working conditions applied to their circumstances.
The offi cer was assaulted in 2010 and later suff ered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A year later, she was arrested following an incident that she said was related to her PTSD. Following investigation, she was dismissed without notice by a police misconduct panel. She appealed to the employment tribunal, claiming disability discrimination and disability-related harassment, but was told her claim was barred by the principle of judicial immunity since the police misconduct body was a judicial body.
However, the Supreme Court unanimously held this week that judicial immunity does not apply. It found that EU law requires offi cers to be able to bring claims in the employment tribunal regardless of police misconduct panel decisions. Giving the lead judgment, Lord Reed said: ‘In a case where directly effective EU rights are in issue, EU law must be the starting point of the analysis. It may also be the finishing point, since it takes priority over domestic law in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
‘The Framework Directive confers on all persons, including police offi cers, a directly eff ective right to be treated in accordance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to employment and working conditions, including dismissals.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
