Brum Council Racism Verdict 2

“WE WERE RIGHT TO APPEAL” – CITY LEGAL OFFICER

27-11-2007

Birmingham Council’s Chief Legal Officer Mirza Ahmad has defended the city’s decision to appeal against a racism verdict in the Paul Samuel’s case – even though they lost again. Samuel’s claim at an Industrial Tribunal that he was unfairly dismissed and victimised was also upheld.

As we revealed in March, former legal services officer Samuels won his case against the local authority even though many aspects of his behaviour were criticised by the Tribunal. (see link here)

The ruling implicated the Council’s top legal eagle Mirza Ahmad, his assistant director David Tatlow and a Lib Dem councillor Mike Ward.

Last month, the Appeal Court upheld the original verdict, although this wasn’t made public until we revealed it last week (see link here).

Now Ahmad has given his first official response to the story, saying that it was right to seek to have the original judgement overturned – and that no officer has been found to be racist.

Here’s his response in full:

“The Employment Appeals Tribunal found in favour of Paul Samuels in respect of 3 of his allegations, but it must not be forgotten that the Employment Tribunal has already dismissed the remainder of the 31 allegations made by Paul Samuels against the Council.

“Furthermore, it must be stressed that no officers have been found by the courts to have been guilty of discriminating against Paul Samuels on the basis of his race. He was dismissed for gross misconduct reasons and the courts have accepted that he: -

“ ‘... was literally the author of a lot of his misfortune and he must face the prospect of a severe attack on his remedy when this case goes back' to the Employment Tribunal in February 2008.’

“Unfortunately, the Employment Appeals Tribunal has upheld the racial discrimination inference drawn by the Employment Tribunal from the oral evidence that the Members Appeal Panel, which considered the appeal from the Chief Legal Officer's decision to dismiss Paul Samuels for gross misconduct.

“This is a technical legal argument and the Council was right to appeal. Put simply, there is a transfer of the onus of proof on to employers to disprove that a person has not been discriminated on the grounds of, as in this case, race.

“The Council failed to shift that onus back to Paul Samuels. It does not, therefore, mean that the Members who heard the appeal actually discriminated against Paul Samuels on the basis of his race. Just that an inference has been drawn from the oral evidence.”

Join the discussion on The Stirrer Forum.