Employment tribunal finds former SFO investigator’s whistleblowing allegations not well founded
A former Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigator who claimed he was subjected to detriment after raising internal concerns about investigation practices has had his whistleblowing case dismissed in full by an employment tribunal.
Philip Jackson, who worked as an investigator at the SFO from 2019 until earlier this year, brought a public interest disclosure claim against the agency, alleging that he suffered reprisals after making three protected disclosures. The SFO denied all allegations.
In an oral judgment handed down by Employment Judge Forde, the tribunal unanimously found that Jackson’s claims were “not well founded”. It rejected each of his alleged disclosures as qualifying under whistleblowing law and concluded that no evidence supported his assertions of detriment.
“The tribunal finds the claims of whistleblowing detriment are dismissed in respect of each one,” Judge Forde said. “The claimant failed to demonstrate that he made qualifying disclosures and, in any event, failed to demonstrate that the acts he relies upon as detriments can be viewed as such.”
Embed from Getty Images
The panel, comprising three members, described Jackson as “prone to making serious allegations without evidence”. It accepted the SFO’s argument that his complaints did not amount to protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Jackson had alleged that SFO management had instructed him not to record certain observations about a case in writing, suggesting this breached the prosecution code of practice. However, the tribunal accepted the SFO’s explanation that the direction was a procedural request intended to ensure staff exercised caution when commenting on case files, rather than an attempt to conceal wrongdoing.
The tribunal also rejected Jackson’s claim that the ending of his temporary promotion had damaged his reputation, finding no evidence that his career prospects or standing within the organisation were harmed.
The judgment follows a hearing earlier this year in which Jackson argued that his whistleblowing disclosures exposed systemic issues in how concerns were raised and recorded within the SFO. He claimed he had been ostracised and unfairly treated as a result. The SFO maintained that his conduct had been appropriately managed and that no reprisals had occurred.
In its submissions, the SFO said Jackson had misunderstood or mischaracterised internal communications and management directions. The agency told the tribunal that Jackson’s view of events was “distorted by a lack of perspective” and that his disclosures did not meet the legal test for being in the public interest.
The tribunal accepted those arguments, agreeing that what Jackson had raised amounted to workplace disagreement rather than the exposure of wrongdoing or malpractice.
The case adds to the recent scrutiny of the Serious Fraud Office’s internal culture and handling of staff concerns, following several high-profile resignations and reviews in recent years. However, in this instance, the tribunal found that Jackson’s allegations lacked evidential foundation and that the SFO’s responses had been proportionate and appropriate.
Concluding the judgment, Judge Forde said: “The tribunal unanimously finds that the claimant’s case is not well founded. His claims of suffering detriment as a result of making protected disclosures are dismissed.”
The decision closes a case that had drawn attention within the legal and enforcement community for its potential to shed light on whistleblowing protections within major government agencies. For the SFO, the outcome represents a clear vindication of its position that Jackson’s allegations were without merit.