 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wickremasinghe v Crown Prosecution Service [1995] UKEAT 1057_94_2303 (23 March 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/1057_94_2303.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 1057_94_2303 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MISS C HOLROYD
MR G H WRIGHT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR CHATTERJEE
(of Counsel)
Don & Co
Solicitors
7 Gunnersbury Lane
Acton
London W3 8EA
JUDGE LEVY QC: Mrs J Wickremasinghe, the appellant, had the laudable ambition of becoming a Crown Prosecutor. She was allowed to perform as such for a period on a temporary basis, but after some time this ended. She went to interviews with a view to being appointed a Crown Prosecutor. In due course she failed to obtain such an appointment. Disappointed by this, she commenced proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal by a complaint dated 7th May 1993, in which she claimed that she was discriminated in being confirmed in a position as Crown Prosecutor on grounds of sex and race.
There was a four day hearing of her complaint before the Industrial Tribunal at Ashford, Kent on 11th, 12th, 13th July and on 2nd September 1994. The Tribunal's decision was communicated to the parties on 26th September 1994. It was a long and careful decision. The unaminous decision of the Tribunal was that the applicant had suffered no unlawful discrimination contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and no unlawful discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1876.
The Appeal is being heard as a preliminary matter, under the new directions, and Mr Chatterjee has appeared for the appellant today as he did below. He has rehearsed before us a number of arguments which he quite clearly rehearsed to the Tribunal below. We have to say that we are as unimpressed with them as they were.
His submissions included these: There was no evidence that anyone who wished to be appointed a Crown Prosecutor, had to go before a board. That is not a subject of the Notice of Appeal and there is a among the finding of facts which we find in the Tribunal's finding at paragraph 4:
"(y) A legally qualified person can never become a CP [that is Crown Prosecutor] without appearing before a board."
It is quite clear that there was evidence to justify that finding and it is quite clear therefore why it does not appear in the Notice of Appeal. Other similar points are taken, such as she was left in a temporary post too long, without being given a warning. But a barrister, as the appellant was, must, and should have known that nobody could become a Crown Prosecutor without appearing before a board. She had more than one appearance before the Board, where unfortunately her performance did not enable her to qualify.
The Tribunal, in as fair a judgment as we have read, took on board all the submissions which Mr Chatterjee made. It answered them in their findings of fact and their findings of law in paragraph 12 to 16 of the Reasons. We have no doubt at all that this is an Appeal which is bound to fail. It is really an appeal made because the Appellant is unable to succeed in her ambition of becoming a Crown Prosecutor. That is not something which is the fault of the employers or the fault of the Industrial Tribunal who listened to her complaint quite clearly, patiently and dealt with all Mr Chatterjee's submissions with clarity and fairness. In essence the appeal is against findings of fact which the Tribunal made and was entitled to make. Their decision is not perverse. In the circumstances we can see no point in letting this Appeal go ahead and we must dismiss it at this stage.