The appellant appealed against the dismissal of his claim for unlawful discrimination brought against the respondent chief constable on the basis that a search was carried out in his home without a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter in the knowledge that he was profoundly deaf.

The appellant’s home was searched on three occasions pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act by a number of officers, some of which had had previous dealings with the appellant and knew that he was deaf. The judge dismissed his claim and concluded that the police officers had communicated effectively with the defendant. The appellant submitted that the Chief Constable failed to comply with the duty imposed on her by s.21E of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to make reasonable adjustments to the procedure, policy and practice and that the judge had erred in identifying the procedure, policy and practice as the attempt to establish effective communication.  Secondly, that the judge erred in his approach to the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The appeal was dismissed.

Although a judge had erred in his approach to the manner in which he identified a chief constable’s procedure, policy and practice within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in relation to conducting searches of premises and the duty to make reasonable adjustments to lessen detrimental effects. However the appellant had suffered no detriment as a result of the procedure, policy and practice or the breach of duty and had been able to communicate effectively with the officers in question. http://bit.ly/1ale2zq