Ebuzoeme v The Crown Prosecution (Race Discrimination : Direct)

Dismissal of Senior Crown Prosecutor by Crown Prosecution Service for gross misconduct � making malicious and vexatious allegations.

It was argued that the Tribunal failed to give properly reasons in respect of two arguments raised by the Claimant - (1) the dismissal took place on a false assumption that definitive findings of malicious and vexatious conduct had already been made during the investigation of a grievance and (2) the sanction of dismissal was not appropriate given the classification of offences within the Respondent�s disciplinary policy. It was also argued that the Tribunal�s conclusions in respect of (2) were perverse.�

This is an appeal by Mr Aniere Ebuzoeme (�the Claimant�) against a judgment of the Employment Tribunal sitting in London (South), Employment Judge Freer presiding, dated 14 June 2011.� The Claimant alleged that his former employers, the Crown Prosecution Service (�the Respondent�) had discriminated against him on the grounds of race, subjected him to detriment and dismissed him for whistleblowing and dismissed him unfairly.� His allegations were wide ranging.� The hearing took 15 days.� The Tribunal�s reasons run to 69 pages.� His claims were all dismissed.

The Claimant�s appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was also wide‑ranging.� However following a preliminary hearing most of the grounds of appeal were dismissed by an order dated 18 October 2012.� Two grounds were considered to be arguable and sent through to this full hearing.� They were paragraph 16.12 of Ground 2 within the Notice of Appeal and Ground 4 within the Notice of Appeal, insofar as they relate to the claim of unfair dismissal (see paragraphs 103, 107 and 109 of the Judgment of Slade J).

The first ground asserts essentially that the dismissal took place on a false assumption that definitive findings of malicious and vexatious conduct had already been made during the investigation of the grievance.� It is said that the Tribunal�s reasons do not properly address this point.� The second ground asserts that the sanction of dismissal was not appropriate given the classification of offences within the Respondent�s disciplinary policy.� It is said that the Tribunal�s reasons do not properly address this point or that the Tribunal�s conclusions are perverse.