27 - Defensive Witnesses and Judicial Intervention — When Respondent Behaviour Crosses the Line

The Bury College Employment Tribunal was meant to be a forum for assessing fairness, evidence, and process. But on several occasions, the behaviour of the College’s witnesses raised serious concerns about professionalism, impartiality, and how the case was defended.

During cross-examination, both Sarah Walton, the investigator, and Charlie Deane, the appeal officer, displayed striking levels of defensiveness. Their reactions were not only revealing in terms of tone and attitude, but also serious enough to prompt direct intervention from the judge.

Sarah Walton: “How dare you ask that question”

In one notable exchange, when the Claimant’s representative asked Sarah Walton an appropriate question about her investigation, she responded sharply with:

“How dare you ask that question.”

This outburst came not in response to an abusive or irrelevant line of questioning, but to a question well within the scope of fair tribunal inquiry. The judge immediately intervened, reminding Ms Walton that it was an acceptable question.

Such a reaction from the lead investigator, someone who should exemplify neutrality and composure, risks undermining confidence in the investigation itself. It also underscores the perception that scrutiny of the College’s process was not welcomed, but resisted.

Charlie Deane: Personal Attacks on the claimant's Representative

The defensiveness didn’t end there. Charlie Deane, the senior manager who upheld the dismissal at appeal, crossed an even more serious line. During questioning, Mr Deane launched personal attacks on the Claimant’s representative, a person tasked with challenging the College’s actions.

Once again, the judge was forced to intervene, telling Mr Deane that personal attacks on representatives were not acceptable.

This type of behaviour is not just inappropriate, it speaks volumes about the mindset of those defending the College’s decision. Instead of calmly explaining or justifying their actions, key witnesses became adversarial, emotionally charged, and combative when questioned. These are not the reactions of individuals confident in a robust and fair process.

What This Means for the Judge

From a legal standpoint, the judge is not just assessing facts, they are evaluating credibility, demeanour, and fairness. Witnesses who become defensive under scrutiny, who lash out at representatives, or who reject legitimate questions, can harm the credibility of the case they’re meant to support.

In this case, both the investigator and the appeal chair demonstrated a discomfort with challenge and accountability. That is deeply relevant when the central question before the judge is whether the process was procedurally and substantively fair.

If the College’s own senior witnesses responded to routine tribunal questions with hostility, it raises a compelling question: How open were they to fair challenge, contradictory evidence, or alternative explanations during the internal process itself?

The judge will not ignore this. In fact, such behaviour may suggest that the decisions made were not based on impartial consideration of the evidence, but on fixed assumptions, personal investment in the outcome, and a reluctance to be questioned.

In a tribunal where the meaning and fairness of process are under scrutiny, how those defending the process behave under pressure matters.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more