Copying council CCTV footage and lying about it: dismissal for gross misconduct upheld
A Neighbourhood Services Assistant was fairly dismissed after copying council-owned CCTV footage without permission and dishonestly denying it when questioned. The tribunal upheld the dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #cctv-footage
- #data-breach
- #dishonesty
- #gross-misconduct
- #reasonable-investigation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Neighbourhood Services Assistant from 9 April 2018 until dismissal on 30 March 2022.
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct for copying council-owned CCTV footage without permission and for dishonesty when questioned about it.
- The claimant initially denied having the CCTV footage when asked by his line manager and the information governance team.
- The investigating officer, Mr Vaughan, conducted a reasonable investigation including speaking to the witness, checking the CCTV system access, and reviewing staff rotas.
- The disciplinary hearing was conducted by Mr Evans, who found the claimant blameworthy of both allegations and dismissed him.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Biscuit incident
A colleague threw a biscuit at the claimant.
-
Paper incident
A colleague threw a ball of paper at the claimant.
-
Claimant raised grievance
The claimant raised a grievance about the biscuit and paper incidents.
-
CCTV footage reported
Kirsty Creighton reported seeing the claimant viewing CCTV footage on his personal phone.
-
Initial enquiry by Ms Delaney
Ms Delaney asked the claimant about the CCTV footage; the claimant denied having it.
-
Claimant commenced sickness absence
The claimant began a period of sickness absence.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Vaughan held an investigation meeting with the claimant, who then admitted he had received the CCTV footage anonymously.
-
Investigation outcome letter
Mr Vaughan wrote to the claimant confirming the additional allegation of dishonesty.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Mr Evans chaired the disciplinary hearing and dismissed the claimant without notice for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was not upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for gross misconduct (copying CCTV footage and dishonesty) was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996, focusing on whether the employer had carried out a reasonable investigation and whether dismissal was a reasonable response.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that Leicester City Council had acted fairly.
- The investigation was reasonable: the investigating officer spoke to witnesses, checked CCTV system access, and reviewed staff rotas.
- The disciplinary hearing was conducted by a neutral manager, and the employee was allowed to bring support.
- The employee initially denied having the footage but later admitted receiving it anonymously; the council reasonably concluded he had been dishonest.
- No compensation was awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are accused of misconduct, be honest from the start — dishonesty can turn a minor issue into gross misconduct.
- Employers should ensure investigations are thorough, including speaking to relevant witnesses and checking access logs, to show they acted reasonably.
- Having a neutral decision-maker who has no prior involvement in the case strengthens the fairness of the disciplinary process.
- Employees should be aware that copying confidential data without permission, even for personal reasons, can lead to dismissal.
This case shows how a seemingly minor incident — copying CCTV footage to support a personal grievance — can escalate into a dismissal for gross misconduct when combined with dishonesty.
What happened
The employee, a Neighbourhood Services Assistant with four years' service, had raised a grievance about two incidents with a colleague. During the grievance process, he obtained council-owned CCTV footage without permission. When asked about it by his line manager and the information governance team, he denied having it. Only later, during the investigation, did he admit he had received it anonymously.
The council investigated thoroughly: the investigating officer spoke to the witness who reported seeing the footage on the employee's phone, checked the CCTV system access logs, and reviewed staff rotas. The disciplinary hearing was conducted by a manager from a different department, ensuring impartiality. The employee was allowed to bring his aunt for support.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the council had a genuine belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the employee had copied the footage and been dishonest. The investigation was reasonable, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for gross misconduct. The claim was therefore dismissed.
What could have been done differently
For the employee, being upfront about having the footage from the start might have changed the outcome. For employers, this case reinforces the importance of a thorough investigation and a neutral decision-maker — both of which the council demonstrated.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that dishonesty during an investigation is often treated as seriously as the original misconduct. It also shows that employers who follow a fair process — reasonable investigation, impartial hearing, and right of appeal — are likely to have dismissals upheld at tribunal.
Similar cases
Packing operator dismissed for leaving early without permission: dismissal fair despite inconsistent colleague treatment
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a packing operator with 11 years' service who left work early without authorisation and was found to have been dishonest about his start time. No compensation was awarded.
Assistant manager dismissed for using physical force on customers: tribunal upholds John Lewis decision
An assistant team manager with eight years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV showed him pushing, grabbing and kicking members of the public. The tribunal rejected his claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Dismissed for keeping commission overpayments he knew were not due: employer acted fairly
A commercial development executive with 8 years' service was fairly dismissed after he failed to report three commission overpayments totalling £6,049.83 that he knew he was not entitled to. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
30-year employee dismissed for gross misconduct without any disciplinary procedure: unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that Dunwood Specialties Limited unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee after failing to follow any disciplinary process, but reduced compensation by 80% because the employee would likely have been dismissed anyway.