A cash-strapped fire brigade forked out more than £40,000 in legal fees after being sued by a firefighter who was sacked for buying weapons online.
Yes, this is yet another casualty of the war on common sense.
Tyrone Bahar alleged the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority was 'institutionally racist' for firing him in light of his criminal offences, which saw him jailed for five years. An employment tribunal heard the firefighter, who was behind bars when he brought forward claims, felt the sanction to dismiss him was 'too severe'.
He sued for unfair dismissal and race and disability discrimination, but his claims were thrown out after an employment judge found the authority was right to sack him, stating it was a perfectly 'reasonable response' to his crimes.
Thank god for a judge with sense, but even so, the taxpayer is still on the hook for the cost.
Now, a freedom of information request has revealed the fire brigade had to fork out £41,683 in legal fees to defend these claims.
In August 2020, the first investigatory meeting was held and Mr Bahar told bosses whilst he accepted that he pleaded guilty to possessing firearms, he asserted that he had thought they were legal and would not have bought them if he had realised they were illegal. The panel heard evidence from a psychological report, which stated the firefighter had a 'disorder of collecting items' and this hoarding 'could explain the behaviour exhibited by collecting several weapons'.
Good grief! And when the mental health tack failed, pull out the RaceCard!
Whilst his prison sentence was live, Mr Bahar brought forward a claim of unfair dismissal. In a 251 page witness statement read by the panel, the firefighter alleged there was an 'unhelpful atmosphere' at the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority which was 'based on race'.
These claims were not upheld by EJ Thomas Talbot-Ponsonby who said: '[Mr Bahar's] case is that he perceives that there is institutional racism, and that he has suffered ongoing discrimination and harassment due to his race, which he feels is either tolerated or even condoned by management.
'The tribunal consider that, having regard to the pleaded case... [Mr Bahar] has not provided evidence to support this allegation.'
Perhaps where there's palpably no evidence, legal aid to sue should be automatically refused?
