Supreme Court rules ‘whistleblowing not a licence to harass’

Come on UPS, Unite, VOSA, HSE, CIPD, lets see what you dare do.

To quote Jim Hacker you've all got your snouts in the same trough

Whistleblowers “who take things too far” in an attempt to expose wrongdoing can be guilty of harassment, the Supreme Court has ruled. 

The judgment related to the case of Hayes v Willoughby, where former employee Mr Willoughby was convinced that his former employer Mr Hayes had committed fraud. In his intense pursuit of evidence against Hayes, Willoughby contacted the HMRC, several police forces, Hayes’ GP and his landlord. Hayes then brought an action against Willoughby accusing him of unlawful harassment, and also filed for an injunction to prevent the behaviour continuing. But the original hearing at Cambridge County Court decided that while Willoughby’s behaviour was extreme, his genuine belief that a crime had taken place meant he had not fallen foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Act is ordinarily used by individual employees to complain about harassment by a colleague or employer, but it also provides a defence where the harassing conduct is aimed at preventing or detecting a crime.However, this week’s Supreme Court ruling disagreed with the County Court judgment’s on the matter, and also upheld the injunction. “The Supreme Court has confirmed that, whilst the Act does protect whistle-blowers from allegations of harassment, it is based on a premise of rationality,” explained Audrey Williams, head of discrimination law at international law firm Eversheds. “A would-be harasser cannot rely on the Act to support his or her pursuit of the truth and defend a harassment complaint, unless he or she has gone through this mental process.” “Here, Mr Willoughby’s persistence demonstrated more than mere unreasonableness but irrationality,” she continued. “He was no longer guided by any objective assessment of the evidence of Mr Hayes’ supposed criminality, but proceeded with his campaign for his own sake, regardless of the prospect of detecting any crimes.” Williams added that the Protection from Harassment Act was likely to gain much greater significance when the provisions requiring employers to protect their staff from harassment by third parties are withdrawn next month.