09. Rebecca Walton
The differing way the report treats their respective evidence is stark.
Paul Anthony Sellers -v- (1) Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2) The British Council (Claim No: QB-2020-000124)
Extracts from submission to the (then) Queen’s Bench, 30th July 2020:
Ms Walton and our client knew each other and had a professional relationship. Ms Walton… became the countersigning manager to our client’s appraisals from 2016 to 2018… It is clear Ms Walton had been involved in downgrading our client’s [performance] award… Due to the close proximity of their work she could not be impartial and therefore should not have been appointed as the investigator in this process.
During the Appeal process … [Ms Walton] when questioned as to whether or not there had ever been any other allegations of this type made against our client, provided the following information to the Appeals Officer;
‘Ok, Paul was in Milan with me on a business trip. He was not accompanied by his wife. Within minutes of me leaving, he texted someone something like, “now I am free Black Swan, we can meet and have some fun”. I believe it was an assignation that was outside of his marriage as his wife was not there, and it felt like the minute the bosses back was turned, he sent the message’
It was not an affair but even if it was the information related to consensual activities between two adults. Ms Walton made assumptions about the relationship between our client and his wife based on her personal values. The information provided did not relate to a complaint or allegation made against our client. In introducing this to the process this demonstrated Ms Walton’s prejudice against our client. Clearly Ms Walton held the view that a person who is capable of having an extra marital affair could be capable of sexual assault and had corrupt sexual morals. Ms Walton came to this opinion of our client prior to being appointed as investigator.
Further evidence of Ms Walton’s opinion of our client’s character is provided by text messages sent to him in error. On 6th December 2018 Ms Walton sent two text messages to our client as follows:
‘A plausible and clever scoundrel’ and
‘And charming too’
A third message was then sent to our client in reaction to the realisation of the error:
‘Sorry last two messages not for you and don’t worry not about you either’
Our client had not had any communication by text message with Ms Walton that day… it is more likely than not that the messages he received in error were about him. The messages demonstrate Ms Walton’s prejudice against our client and her view that he is an untrustworthy individual.
We are unaware of how Ms Walton was selected to lead the investigation, but it is clear she held a prejudicial and biased view against our client. Ms Walton should have recused herself as she was not impartial. As a direct consequence of her bias, the fact-finding investigation carried out by her was prejudicial and fundamentally flawed.
Employment Tribunal Judgment 22nd December 2021
5.25 On 15 January 2018, the claimant was interviewed. He was not told, prior to the interview, the nature of the allegations which were to be put to him at the interview.
5.34 Ms Walton asked for more detail and the claimant indicated it would be necessary for her to see the layout of the apartment. Ms Walton never followed that up and did not obtain either a sketch plan or photographs.
5.48 The [Mrs Walton’s fact-finding] report goes beyond presenting the evidence and contains a lengthy analysis of Ms Walton's reflections on the strength of the evidence of the claimant. She is critical of his “tone.”
5.49 There is no comparable analysis of, or commentary on, ZZ’s inconsistencies, even though it is acknowledged that her recollection was hazy and there was a clear discrepancy in her account about who saw ZZ to the door. The differing way the report treats their respective evidence is stark.
7.34 The problems with ZZ’s account were recognised. By 14 March, Ms Walton stated she could conclude little from the sequence.
7.35 Against this, the claimant's evidence was always consistent, albeit when the initial allegation was put to him, he had no immediate recall.
7.36 Ms Walton did note an obvious reason for why the claimant’s first account may have been incomplete. In her report she said “It was clear, and it was to be expected, that PS was on edge and unprepared. He was clearly shocked and strongly denied the allegation.” Yet it was the content of that interview which was later said to constitute a careful exploration of his account.
7.57 The investigation failed to identify the existence of contemporaneous documents. It failed to retrieve relevant documents either from ZZ, or as generated by her complaint to the embassy. The investigation failed to adequately explore ZZ’s account, and failed to identify the relevant circumstances of the alleged assault. This extended to the general circumstances as to where it occurred and in what manner. It also failed to identify the details of the alleged assault. The detail of the circumstances was directly relevant to establishing what potential evidence existed. Failure to establish what potential evidence existed prevented the respondent from pursuing it.
7.61 … I find the investigation was not one that was open to a reasonable employer and… the grounds she relied on were not supported by a reasonable investigation.
7.79 The claimant identified several procedural faults. His allegation that there was inconsistency in the approach taken in interviews was rejected. It is unclear why. The investigation report clearly shows he was examined carefully on any matter of potential discrepancy, whereas ZZ was not. A cursory reading of the investigation report demonstrates that Ms Walton expressed strong and negative opinions about the claimant's evidence, but not about ZZ's. There was clear evidence of a serious disparity in treatment. It is unclear why his contention was rejected.
7.109 There were fundamental difficulties with the investigation. The failings were serious. For the reasons given, this investigation was not one within the band of reasonableness. It was not a reasonable investigation open to reasonable employer…
7.110 It follows that the dismissal was unfair.
Please subscribe to receive the next instalments directly to your inbox.