Detention officer who failed to conduct patrols fairly dismissed for gross misconduct
An Employment Tribunal has ruled that Mitie Care and Custody Limited fairly dismissed a Detention Custody Officer with 11 years' service who failed to carry out three hourly patrols and the morning roll count. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #detention-custody-officer
- #failure-to-conduct-patrols
- #failure-to-conduct-roll-count
- #anxiety-disability
- #gross-misconduct
- #range-of-reasonable-responses
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Detention Custody Officer from 1 April 2008 until dismissal on 19 December 2019.
- On the night of 18/19 November 2019, the claimant failed to conduct three hourly patrols and the morning roll count.
- The claimant admitted he did not conduct the patrols or the roll count, citing the aftermath of a confrontation with a detainee.
- The respondent had support mechanisms available, but the claimant did not request them.
- The majority of the tribunal found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for gross misconduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Kalyx Limited, later transferred to Mitie Care and Custody Limited via TUPE.
-
Anxiety symptoms began
Claimant first sought GP assistance for depression and anxiety symptoms.
-
Occupational Health report
OH report stated claimant had chronic anxiety and was likely disabled under the Equality Act.
-
Incident with detainee
Claimant was involved in a confrontation with a detainee; he failed to conduct patrols and morning roll count.
-
Investigation meeting
Claimant attended investigation meeting with Ms Sewell; admitted not doing patrols or roll count.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct for failing to conduct patrols and morning roll count.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Rennie; dismissal upheld on 12 February 2020.
-
Preliminary hearing on disability
Employment Judge Milner-Moore found claimant disabled by reason of anxiety.
-
Final hearing (day 1)
Substantive hearing of unfair dismissal and discrimination claims began.
-
Judgment
Tribunal dismissed all claims; majority found dismissal fair.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the officer for gross misconduct, and whether the dismissal amounted to disability discrimination due to his anxiety.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
- The majority found that the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses.
- The officer admitted failing to conduct patrols and the roll count, and did not request available support mechanisms.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Admitting a serious failure, such as missing safety-critical patrols, makes it very hard to argue that dismissal was unreasonable.
- If you are struggling due to a disability, it is important to request support from your employer rather than simply failing to perform duties.
- Even long-serving employees can be fairly dismissed for gross misconduct if the breach is serious enough.
- Employers should ensure they have clear procedures and support mechanisms in place, but are not obliged to guess that an employee needs help if none is requested.
When a serious breach overrides long service
This case shows that even an 11-year career can be brought to an end by a single serious failure if the employer's response is within the band of reasonableness. The officer admitted he did not carry out three hourly patrols or the morning roll count during a night shift, following a confrontation with a detainee. While his anxiety was a recognised disability, the majority of the tribunal was not persuaded that the employer should have done more to support him before dismissing.
What the employer did right
Mitie Care and Custody Limited had support mechanisms available, but the officer did not ask for them. The investigation and appeal processes were thorough, and the decision to dismiss for gross misconduct was based on the officer's own admission. The tribunal noted that the failures were serious and could have compromised safety.
What this means for similar claims
Employees who have a disability must still follow reasonable instructions and perform core duties. If they feel unable to do so, they should proactively seek adjustments or support. Employers are not expected to be mind-readers. This case reinforces that a fair process and a reasonable conclusion can protect an employer from an unfair dismissal claim, even when the employee has a long service record and a disability.
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.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
Security officer dismissed for leaving post: unauthorised absences justified gross misconduct
A security officer with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV footage showed he left his post without authorisation on multiple occasions. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Assistant store manager dismissed for manipulating time-recording system: dismissal fair
An assistant store manager who allowed a colleague to work without clocking in and later falsified time records was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal rejected her claim that lack of training excused the manipulation of the Kronos system.