PC S. Jones and PC G. Tunnock both had their firearms authorisations permanently withdrawn in August 2024 after posing for pictures with the radio presenter Tallia Storm.
Video of the officers engaging with Ms Storm while parked on a double yellow line was shared on social media and covered in the press, attracting both positive and negative comments.
Senior officer Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie decided their behaviour could appear sexist and ordered their removal from the Firearms Unit.
READ NEXT: College student hit 16-year-old with mallet in horror classroom attack
READ NEXT: The personal fortunes of two city drug dealers revealed in court
The unit had previously been embroiled in a sexism controversy after being forced to pay close to £1m to Rhona Malone for misogynistic abuse and bullying.
Mr Ritchie arranged a meeting with Superintendent Boyd, Chief Superintendent Paterson, who was the Divisional Commander and Superintendent l’Anson who was the Superintendent within OSD, Firearms for the afternoon of 6 March 2024 to discuss the issue. No minutes were taken.
Mr Ritchie had formed the view that having a picture taken with a female celebrity could be seen as sexist, and reflective of the ‘boys club’ mentality which had been exposed in the judgement in favour of Ms Malone.
The tribunal found there was “nothing which could reasonably be perceived as sexist or misogynistic in the claimants’ interaction with Ms Storm, who had welcomed and been delighted with the engagement with the claimants”.
Mr Ritchie opted to permanently withdraw the two officers from firearms policing, but did not follow standard operating procedure, which he had not read.
No officer had ever had their authorisation permanently withdrawn at the instruction of management prior to his decision.
On 13 March 2024, the Professional Standards Department (PSD) concluded that both claimants were guilty of discreditable conduct and that improvement action should be taken.
The report stated: “On balance, while I think the behaviour was unprofessional and amounts to misconduct, it appears this was a momentary lapse in judgement rather than a deliberate intention to ignore required professional standards.”
Despite the PSD concluding that their behaviour amounted to little more than a lapse in judgement, Mr Ritchie insisted the officers be transferred.
The tribunal found this reaction was influenced by stereotypes about male officers, rather than any misconduct by the claimants.
While the tribunal rejected claims of harassment and victimisation, it held that both the withdrawal of firearms status and the forced transfers amounted to unlawful sex discrimination. The judgment noted the significant damage to the officers’ mental health, reputations, and career prospects.
In rejecting the harassment claim, the tribunal concluded that meetings and comments about misogyny were rooted in concerns over perception, not accusations against the officers.
It also concluded the way their grievance was handled did not amount to victimisation.
However, Police Scotland was found to have directly discriminated against the officers because of their sex at the final hearing in Edinburgh.
It concluded Mr Ritchie “was not willing to review the decision he had previously made and did not want the officers in OSD (Operational Services Department)”.
This was “inextricably linked to the sex of the claimants” and his efforts to “make an example out of them because they were male officers”, which “amounted to direct discrimination”.
PC Jones was awarded compensation of £24,800.59 made up of £2,646.59 for loss of income, injury to feelings of £20,000 and interest of £2,154.
PC Tunnock received compensation of £23,824.56, £1,670.56 for loss of income, comepnsation for injury to feelings of £20,000 and interest of £2,154.
A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “We are grateful to the employment tribunal panel for hearing the evidence in this case and for delivering their judgment.
“It is important that we now carefully consider the judgment to gather any learning and areas of improvement before commenting further.”
