• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • David Jones
    • Debbie Poole
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Did employer breach employee’s right to a private life?

27th May 2016

Following on from Nicola’s previous article on dealing with employees accused of criminal offences during employment, we take a look at a recent case (Garamukanwa v Solent NHS Trust) concerning an employee who was dismissed based on evidence passed to his employer from the police, but where no criminal charges were brought against him. The question in this case was whether the employer had breached the employee’s right to respect for private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Mr Garamukanwa worked for the Solent NHS Trust and had a personal relationship with a colleague, Ms Maclean. After their relationship ended, Mr Garamukanwa suspected that Ms Maclean had started a relationship with another colleague, Ms Smith. Mr Garamukanwa sent emails to the work email addresses of both women, threatening that if they did not tell their manager about their relationship, he would.

An anonymous letter had already been sent to their manager, expressing concern about inappropriate sexual behaviour between Ms Maclean and Ms Smith at work. When the manager spoke to them about it they denied any inappropriate behaviour or that they were in a relationship at all. Ms Maclean suggested that the anonymous letter may have come from Mr Garamukanwa. When Ms Maclean received the email from Mr Garamukanwa, she reported it to her manager, as she felt threatened. The manager spoke to Mr Garamukanwa on an informal basis and explained that the email was inappropriate. The manager also showed Mr Garamukanwa the anonymous letter, but he denied that he had written it.

As time went on, a fake Facebook account was set up in the name of Ms Smith and anonymous, malicious, emails were sent from various email addresses to staff and managers at the Trust. After receiving an email containing unpleasant personal comments, Ms Maclean went to the police and gave a witness statement. The police carried out an investigation, during which the Trust suspended Mr Garamukanwa on full pay. Mr Garamukanwa was arrested, but no charges were brought.

The Trust then carried out its own investigation. The Trust’s investigatory officer met with the police, and was given copies of the evidence collected by the police, including photographs found on Mr Garamukanwa’s phone of Ms Maclean’s home address and of a sheet of paper containing details of the email addresses from which the anonymous emails had been sent. The investigatory officer asked the police if the Trust could use the police evidence in its investigation, and was told that this was permitted.

The investigatory officer found that there was sufficient evidence to link Mr Garamukanwa to some of the emails and she recommended that the matter proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

The Trust’s disciplinary officer, relying on the photographs found on the phone, concluded that Mr Garamukanwa had been responsible for sending the emails. Mr Garamukanwa was dismissed for gross misconduct, and his appeal against the Trust’s decision failed.

As we reported in our previous article, the employer is not bound by the same standard of proof as the criminal courts – the evidence is considered on ‘the balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Mr Garamukanwa brought a number of Tribunal claims, including unfair dismissal, and alleged that his employer had breached his right to a private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. All of the claims were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that:

  • The anonymous emails were sent to work addresses and dealt with work-related matters.
  • As a result of the emails, Ms MacLean and Ms Smith suffered distress which could have an adverse effect on their work.
  • The Trust was entitled to take a serious view of Mr Garamukanwa’s actions, should he be found responsible for the emails.
  • The investigation and disciplinary had been carried out professionally, independently and without pre-determination.
  • The Trust could not reasonably be expected, as argued by Mr Garamukanwa, to have interviewed up to 40 people on the ward and carried out forensic tests in relation to the evidence.
  • The fact that Mr Garamukanwa had denied his involvement throughout could be taken into account and be reflected in the penalty.
  • Mr Garamukanwa’s dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer and therefore fair.

Mr Garamukanwa appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), solely in relation to the Article 8 issue.

On appeal, Mr Garamukanwa argued that there was a distinction between public material (the anonymous emails sent to the Trust’s employees) and private material (emails he sent to Ms Maclean about their relationship and the photographs on his phone which were not sent to anyone). Mr Garamukanwa argued that the Trust had no right to look at the private material and that he had a reasonable expectation that it would remain private. He argued that without the private material, which was critical to the Trust’s decision, his dismissal would not have been fair.

The EAT acknowledged that private life under Article 8 includes private correspondence and communications which could potentially include emails sent at work where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  However, whether or not there is an expectation of privacy in an individual case will depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case.

In dismissing the appeal, the EAT held that the Tribunal was entitled to consider all of the material together without drawing a distinction between private material and the anonymous emails. Whilst the matter related to a personal relationship with a colleague, it was brought into the workplace by Mr Garamukanwa himself and concerned work related issues.

It was noted as being significant that Mr Garamukanwa had not objected to the use of any of the evidence during the investigation or disciplinary procedure, and he had not raised any Article 8 issues prior to his Tribunal hearing.

It was also noted that it was difficult to see how Mr Garamukanwa could have any further expectation of privacy when sending emails to Ms Maclean, even to her private email address, once she had already complained about feeling harassed by the earlier email and Mr Garamukanwa had been spoken to about it by the manager.

This interesting case did not, however, consider that the private material should have been returned to Mr Garamukanwa once a decision not to prosecute had been made, and that it should not have been disclosed to a third party, such as the employer, without Mr Garamukanwa’s consent or by way of a court order. CPS guidance states that “the presumption of innocence can only be undermined if the CPS or police were to release evidence enabling individuals to trawl through it to determine why the person was suspected in the first place”.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2016-05-27 09:27:442016-05-31 09:13:22Did employer breach employee’s right to a private life?

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Can long Covid be a disability? 29th June 2022
  • Employer unfairly counted disability-related absences when dismissing 29th June 2022
  • Did an Employment Tribunal correctly award an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code in a sham redundancy case? 29th June 2022
  • Without prejudice negotiations – what is unambiguous impropriety? 29th June 2022
  • Does referring to a man’s baldness at work amount to sexual harassment? 25th May 2022
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2022

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only