In a case which involved a tricky balance being struck between national security and individual employment rights, a Muslim immigration officer who was dismissed from his post without any explanation has failed to convince a tribunal that he is entitled to know at least the gist of the reasons which lay behind his sacking.
The officer had his security clearance withdrawn before being suspended and ultimately dismissed. The Home Office gave no reasons whatsoever for any of those decisions. He launched proceedings, claiming that his unexplained treatment was due to discrimination against him on grounds of his race and religion.
Following a preliminary hearing, an employment judge acceded to a Home Office request that parts of the proceedings should be held behind closed doors in the absence of the immigration officer and his legal advisers. Although he would be represented during the ‘closed’ hearings by a special advocate, he was refused access to any information relating to the reasons for his dismissal.
Challenging the judge’s decision before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), the immigration officer’s lawyers argued that, due to the tight secrecy of the closed hearings and the complete absence of information, he would have no opportunity to properly instruct the special advocate or to answer the case against him.
However, in dismissing the officer’s appeal, the EAT noted that the judge had had to strike a balance between the public interest in maintaining national security and his private interest in obtaining the means to fight his case effectively. The procedure followed in national security matters depended on the particular facts of each case and the immigration officer had no absolute right to be told anything at all about the reasons for his dismissal.