The claimant was engaged through an agency to deliver consultancy services for the respondent Trust.  This was from April to July in 2018.  In July the claimant was notified that his assignment was terminated as it had come to light that he had an unspent conviction which he had failed to declare. The claimant asserted that the real reason was that he had stood for political office for the English Democrats, and it was due to his philosophical belief which he described as ‘English Nationalism’.

The respondent denied this, stating that the termination was due to misleading information on his CV, and they also argued that his philosophical belief was not protected by the Equality Act.

The claimant explained his English nationalism as something which advocates for self-government for England or the re-establishment of an independent sovereign state of England outside of the United Kingdom.   He also stated that it welcomes all those who wish to live in England and adopt English identity.  However, there were also anti-Islamic tweets from the claimant stating that it should be ‘Anglicised’ and ‘toned down’ as well as more unsavoury elements. This also involved the claimant using the hashtag ‘RemoveAllMuslims’.

Outcome:

The Tribunal at first instance had held that there was no discrimination and that there was no philosophical belief which receives protected under the legislation in the claimant’s situation. The EAT upheld this.  They held that the views on English nationalism do go into a situation in which there is no place in British society for Muslims or Islam.  These views include the forcible deportation of Muslims from the United Kingdom. The EAT held that these views are not capable of protection either under domestic legislation or the European Convention on Human Rights.  They referred to Article 17 of the Convention which states that nothing within the Convention may be interpreted as allowing an act aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms set within the Convention. This would be the case if the claimant’s beliefs were upheld as he wished.  Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

An interesting case considering recent disorder over the Summer in both Northern Ireland and in the wider United Kingdom.  The EAT outlines how the claimant’s approach to nationalism was not worthy of protection considering the drastic effect it would have on others and how it would not only undermine others’ rights but destroy them. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66d97c5cfb86ba5a1f214e47/Mr_S_Thomas_v_1__Surrey_and_Borders_Partnership_NHS_Foundation_Trust_2__Ms_A_Brett__2024__EAT_141.pdf