1/ Windle v West Yorks Police: EAT allows a Meek challenge against some findings that some detriments complained about weren't detriments & that other detriments didn't result from the making of protected disclosures.
bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
#ukemplaw
bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT…
#ukemplaw
2/ Dr Windle is a professional interpreter (presumably the same one as of Windle v SoS of Justice fame). She provided services to 2 police forces through a service supplier & raised concerns re procurement & provision of those services, including provision of unqualified people.
3/ After these & other concerns were raised, there were various internal emails questioning whether W had been properly vetted herself & whether she had Home Office clearance. Inquiries suggested a lack of vetting records & thus W was removed from future bookings.
4/ A couple of months later, W received the appropriate vetting clearance, along with other interpreters, & was able to receive offers again.
5/ The ET found that W made a number of disclosures laying out her concerns re unqualified interpreters & the effect of using them on investigation of crimes & administration of justice. W complained of 8 resulting detriments following her complaints.
6/ The ET found 5 weren't detriments whilst 3 were, but that none of the 3 were done on grounds of W having made the protected disclosures. W brought a Meek challenge to each of those 8 findings. The EAT observed it's unusual for that to be the sole basis of challenge.
7/ As with all Meek challenges, the judgment is very much fact-specific, but the following paragraph may be a useful one to some appellants in light of the recent CA judgment in DPP v Greenberg: 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
