Today I have taken it upon myself to email the Equality and Human Rights Commission to address concerns regarding the Police Federation’s potential role in perpetuating the Met’s systemic breaches of Equality laws by way of Indirect discrimination.
Indirect discrimination happens when a working practice, policy or rule (PCP) is the same for everyone but has a worse effect on someone because of a protected characteristic identified under the Equality Act 2010.
It is not news that the Metropolitan Police Service is entrenched with systemic Equality breaches. The Casey report was crucial in identifying the magnitude of such failures. Nevertheless, I am not here to talk about the Casey report, but rather, to invite my fellow colleagues to wonder what is the role of the Federation in all of this. Are they adequately ensuring that members with protected characteristics receive the appropriate support and protection when seeking legal assistance to fund employment claims against the Met? Or are they ring fencing the Met’s last-standing bit of reputation?
If you are familiar with my earlier posts, you will recall that the Federation appointed Waldrons Solicitors to assess the merits of my employment claim. Following their assessment the Federation reverted with a 6-lines summary of the legal advice, which they used as grounds to decline funding my ET claim. However, the core issue isn’t the refusal to fund per se, after all, there is always the appeal process. Rather, the real concern is the lack of transparency regarding the reasons for refusal.
The Federation actively withholds merit assessment letters from its members, hiding it behind the veil of a quasi client-solicitor privilege, claiming the legal advice as their own.
I was sent the below in an email, which encapsulates their position. It reads:
“Any legal advice that comes back from C2 applications is PFEW legal advice which isn’t shared. This is due to historical cases where the advice has been used against PFEW. I can however summarise the advice that has come back from Waldrons solicitors, who were allocated the case.”
He goes further:
“If you are seeking advice from another legal provider then PFEW are unlikely to fund your case as there is no merit in having 2 pieces of legal advice.”
At this point you may ask yourself: What became of the principles of checks and balances, and the entitlement to second professional opinions in insurance claims?
In any event, I was left in the dark about the specifics required to appeal the funding decision, save for a vague directive to present “new evidence.” Four months on, I successfully obtained the letter from the solicitors via a Subject Access Request, since the Federation had also denied its release on these grounds. I then understood the skepticism: The assessment contained factual inaccuracies, legal errors, and it lacked a comprehensive identification of the claim’s primary issues. Luckily for me, I paid attention to my employment law classes at university, and much to their dismay, it happened to be one of my favourite subjects.
Given their reluctance to disclose these merit assessments, as per the quotes above, one might infer that they recognise potential shortcomings and/or negligence in the evaluations.
This evident absence of transparency in their practices deprives members of comprehending the full scope of their claim. Without this insight, how can one determine the professional diligence of the advice or discern how to challenge a funding decision? Checks and balances remain fundamental to justice, but the Federation acts as if they are exempt from it.
But this issue goes much deeper. Drawing from the Casey report, there is irrefutable evidence that officers possessing protected characteristics are disproportionately subjected to discrimination and victimisation within disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, they encounter notable disparities in professional development opportunities compared to their peers without these characteristics
Owing to these pervasive breaches, officers with protected characteristics are considerably more inclined to seek, and indeed request, legal assistance from the Federation for employment claims against the Met. Given the Federation’s non-transparent policy on withholding legal advice and curtailing a just appeal process, these officers face an additional layer of disadvantage at a much larger scale. This prevalent approach, in my view, unequivocally amounts to indirect discrimination as stipulated by the Equality Act 2010.
When the Federation neglects its essential duty to support officers in need of legal assistance, it undermines efforts to confront the Met’s ingrained discriminatory actions and advocate for essential change.
Given these concerns, I felt compelled to bring it to the attention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The public’s interest and the potential long-term impact of these unchecked practices demand immediate consideration.
Please like, comment and share to raise awareness.
