In the case of Mr Phillip Turner-Robson; (2) Ms Kirsteen Bishop; and (3) Mr Graham Horton v The Chief Constable of Thames valley Police Detective Inspector Phillip Turner-Robson, Inspector Graham Horton, and Custody Inspector Kirsteen Bishop filed employment tribunal claims against Thames Valley Police, alleging they were discriminated against for being “white British.”
The tribunal heard that, in an effort to increase diversity among senior staff, a superintendent was instructed to “make it happen” by promoting an “Asian” sergeant to the rank of detective inspector. This directive was given despite warnings about the legal risks of bypassing a competitive selection process.
At the time, the three officers had each served with Thames Valley Police for between 19 and 26 years but were barred from applying for the promotion.
In August 2022, plans were discussed to post a job advertisement for a detective inspector position in the force’s “priority crime team” in Aylesbury.
The tribunal heard that DI Turner-Robson expressed his interest in the role the same day he learned of the vacancy.
However, the following month, Superintendent Emma Baillie decided to appoint Sergeant Sidhu—whose first name was not disclosed—into the role without conducting a competitive process or advertising the vacancy, the tribunal was told.
At the time of her appointment as detective inspector, Sergeant Sidhu had not yet been promoted to the rank of inspector. According to the tribunal, Deputy Chief Constable Jason Hogg and Superintendent Baillie had “jumped the gun” by giving her the senior role.
The tribunal stated, “Superintendent Baillie and likely the deputy chief constable were warned about the risks of implementing such a policy.”
Employment Judge Robin Postle concluded that the three white officers were directly discriminated against based on their race.
“The Superintendent’s decision to appoint Police Sergeant Sidhu to the detective inspector role without any competitive assessment process went beyond mere encouragement, disadvantaging officers who did not share Sergeant Sidhu’s protected characteristic of race, and denying them the opportunity to apply,” the judge said.
“This was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Superintendent Baillie was clearly more focused on ‘making it work’ than on conducting a fair and balanced process.”
Judge Postle added, “Superintendent Baillie’s decision clearly constituted positive discrimination.”
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
