Racial, sexual, homophobic discrimination by MPS employees

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024742

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am looking to find out information about cases of racial, sexual and homophobic discrimination which have been brought against the force by officers, staff, PSCO’s and all other police force members.

I would like the following information:

1. In how many racial, sexual, homophobic discrimination cases which have gone to employment tribunal have the claimants (officers, staff, PSCO’s etc) had their claim upheld?

2. When the claimant has had their claim of racial, sexual, homophobic discrimination upheld by the tribunal, how much, in each instance, has the force had to pay in damages, compensation and legal costs? If you could provide an overall total for the amount of money, as well as breaking it down for each case.

3. How many racial, sexual, homophobic discrimination cases have been settled in an out of court settlement?

4. In the cases where a settlement has been reached, how much was the settlement? If you could provide figures for each individual settlement as well as an overall total for all the settlements which have occurred?

I would like to request these figures for the time period 2017-2021 inclusive. If you could provide any information about cases which have occurred during 2022, that would also be really useful, but please clearly date each case for clarity. In each instance, please clearly signal whether the case is for racial, sexual or homophobic discrimination or if the case involves more than one of the forms of discrimination (e.g. racial and sexual discrimination).

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 40 - Personal Information
Section 43 (2) - Commercial Interests

Reason for decision

Section 40 Personal Information - Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.

The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

The information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data.

• Details and dates of individual settlement payments
• Details and dates of the payments to counsel in each case

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.

In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Schedule 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, specifically Section 58 of that schedule).

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34.

In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.

Section 43 (2) - Commercial Interests - In considering whether disclosing details and dates of the payments to counsel in each case and the details and dates of the payments to external solicitors firms in each case should be disclosed I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

In deciding whether to engage Section 43 of the Act, I have considered whether the public interest lies in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding some of the requested information.

By disclosing details and dates of the individual payments to counsel in each individual case and the details and dates of the payments to external solicitors firms in each case would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of those individuals and firms.

Having considered your request, I can see no public interest in disclosing details and dates of the individual payments to counsel and the details and dates of the payments to external solicitors firms.

On balance and having reviewed the requested information, I have found that the public interest lies in favour of protecting the commercial interests of those individuals and firms.

Disclosure

Q1 - In how many racial, sexual, homophobic discrimination cases which have gone to employment tribunal have the claimants (officers, staff, PSCO’s etc) had their claim upheld?

Tribunal Judgements in relation to Sex Discrimination
FINANCIAL YEAR	2017 - 18	2018 - 19	2019 - 20	2020 - 21	2021 - 22
CLAIM INCLUDES SEX DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
Number of Judgements upheld for Claimant	0	0	0	0	2

 

Tribunal Judgements in relation to Race Discrimination
FINANCIAL YEAR	2017 - 18	2018 - 19	2019 - 20	2020 - 21	2021 - 22
CLAIM INCLUDES RACE DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
Number of Judgements upheld for Claimant	0	5	0	0	0

 

Tribunal Judgements in relation to Sexual Orientation Discrimination
FINANCIAL YEAR	2017 - 18	2018 - 19	2019 - 20	2020 - 21	2021 - 22
CLAIM INCLUDES SEX ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
Number of Judgements upheld for Claimant	0	0	1	0	0

Q2 - When the claimant has had their claim of racial, sexual, homophobic discrimination upheld by the tribunal, how much, in each instance, has the force had to pay in damages, compensation and legal costs? If you could provide an overall total for the amount of money, as well as breaking it down for each case.

The Directorate of Legal Services is not able to identify from the DLS case management system which Employment Tribunal (ET) cases include claims of racial, sexual or homophobic discrimination without looking at each individual case. This would not be possible within the time allowed under FOIA. The Directorate of Professional Standards, however, provided DLS with information they hold on the results of ET cases. Using that information DLS has been able to collate the below:

Settlement Payments – Claim upheld by ET

The total settlement payments made as a result of Tribunal judgments for the period covering financial years 2017/18 – 2021/22 is £119,254.33.

DLS is not prepared to provide details and dates of individual settlement payments, as combined with other information in the public domain it could lead to an individual being identified by way of the mosaic effect and should therefore be exempt under Section 40(2) – personal information. Many of the cases will have confidentiality clauses built in as part of the settlement agreement and disclosure of settlement amounts would breach any clause.

Costs – Claim upheld by ET

It is not possible to provide a full picture of the costs incurred as in-house costs are not held, as explained below. We can, however, provide the cost of external professional and counsel fees.

In-house Costs – Met staff and facilities

Information not held. Basic costs such as facilities, eg, stationery, etc, are not recorded on a granular level. In relation to staff costs, a number of in-house staff may have completed work associated with the case, including say Admin Assistants. Fee earners (our lawyers and paralegals) are the only ones who record the time they spend working on each case. We can supply the total amount of time spent on the cases by those fee earners, but it is not possible to provide the cost of that time without calculating it using the Met’s Ready Reckoner. Therefore the cost of Directorate of Legal Services fee earners is not information that is ‘held’, as we would have to produce information to answer the question.

External Costs – Counsel

The total payments made in relation to counsel (barrister) fees for the period covering financial years 2017/18 – 2021/22 is £96,692.83.

DLS has not provided the details and dates of the payments to counsel in each case. Combined with other information in the public domain this could result in payments to individual self-employed counsel being identified by way of the mosaic effect, so this information should be exempt under Section 40(2). Section 43 would also apply in this instance, as to provide this information would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of those individuals.

External Costs – Professional Fees

The total payments made in relation to professional fees for the period covering financial years 2017/18 – 2021/22 is £260,180.26.

DLS has not provided the details and dates of the payments to external solicitors firms in each case. Combined with other information in the public domain this could result in payments to these firms being identified by way of the mosaic effect, so this information should be exempt under Section 43, as to provide this information would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of those firms.

Q3 - How many racial, sexual, homophobic discrimination cases have been settled in an out of court settlement?

NUMBER OF CLAIMS CITING SEX, RACE & SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION SETTLED BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITHOUT PROCEEDING TO FINAL HEARING

It should be noted that the figures shown below reflect settlement for ANY claims that cite the above stated protected characteristic but may also include other heads of claim such as Age Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Public Interest Disclosure, etc. These figures cannot therefore be aligned to a single protected characteristic as a settled claim may have cited all 3 categories, e.g., a claim settled in 2019-2020 citing sex, race & sexual orientation discrimination with be included in all 3 categories shown below for that year.

FINANCIAL YEAR	2017 - 18	2018 - 19	2019 - 20	2020 - 21	2021 - 22
Claim includes sex discrimination element	6	1	22	7	8
Claim includes race discrimination element	2	3	19	2	9
Claim includes sexual orientation discrimination element	2	1	6	1	1

Q4 - In the cases where a settlement has been reached, how much was the settlement? If you could provide figures for each individual settlement as well as an overall total for all the settlements which have occurred?

I would like to request these figures for the time period 2017-2021 inclusive. If you could provide any information about cases which have occurred during 2022, that would also be really useful, but please clearly date each case for clarity. In each instance, please clearly signal whether the case is for racial, sexual or homophobic discrimination or if the case involves more than one of the forms of discrimination (e.g. racial and sexual discrimination).

The Directorate of Legal Services is not able to identify from the DLS case management system which ET cases include claims of racial, sexual or homophobic discrimination without looking at each individual case. This would not be possible within the time allowed under FOIA. The Directorate of Professional Standards, however, provided DLS with information they hold on the results of ET cases. Using that information DLS has been able to collate the below:

Settlement Payments

The total settlement payments made during the period covering financial years 2017/18 – 2021/22 is £811,560.50.

DLS is not prepared to provide details and dates of individual settlement payments, as combined with other information in the public domain it could lead to a individual being identified by way of the mosaic effect and should therefore be exempt under Section 40(2) – personal information. Many of the cases will have confidentiality clauses built in as part of the settlement agreement and disclosure of settlement amounts would breach any clause.

As stated by the Directorate of Professional Standards, cases may include claims relating to one or more of the above protected characteristics but may also include other heads of claim such as Age Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Public Interest Disclosure, etc, Any settlement payments may not relate solely to the protected characteristics listed by the requestor, but could relate to other heads of claim.