Dismissed for dishonest account after collision: mobile patrol officer loses unfair dismissal claim
A mobile patrol officer who gave a dishonest account of a collision while using his mobile phone and not wearing a seatbelt has lost his unfair dismissal claim against G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #mobile-phone-while-driving
- #seatbelt-violation
- #dishonest-account
- #cctv-evidence
- #whistleblowing-claim-dismissed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a mobile patrol officer from 25 May 2015 until his dismissal on 6 April 2021.
- On 25 February 2021, the claimant drove into the back of a stationary car while looking at a mobile phone and not wearing a seatbelt.
- The claimant's incident report omitted that he was using a mobile phone and that he was not wearing a seatbelt.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a disciplinary hearing found he had driven carelessly, used a handheld mobile phone, and provided a dishonest account.
- The claimant's grievance of 3 April 2021, which he alleged contained protected disclosures, was found not to be a protected disclosure and was made to bolster his position.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and that the claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a mobile patrol officer.
-
Dash cam consent signed
The claimant signed a form acknowledging the introduction of dash cams in vehicles.
-
Counselling for seatbelt violation
The claimant received counselling for not wearing a seatbelt while driving.
-
Collision
The claimant drove into the back of a stationary car while looking at a mobile phone and not wearing a seatbelt.
-
Suspension and investigation invitation
The claimant was suspended and invited to an investigation meeting regarding the collision.
-
Investigation meeting
The claimant attended an investigation meeting where CCTV footage was shown, contradicting his account.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held, chaired by Mr Lee Jones, where the claimant maintained his account.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a written grievance alleging fraud and falsification by the respondent.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal outcome
The appeal against dismissal was dismissed by Mr Taylor-Smith.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was a protected disclosure (whistleblowing).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the dismissal was fair because G4S had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The whistleblowing claim failed because the grievance was not a protected disclosure and was not the reason for dismissal.
Lessons & takeaways
- Honesty in incident reports is crucial: a dishonest account can turn a minor incident into gross misconduct.
- Whistleblowing claims require a protected disclosure made in good faith; raising a grievance after disciplinary action is unlikely to succeed.
- Employers can rely on CCTV evidence even if the employee disputes its accuracy, provided the investigation is reasonable.
- Previous warnings for similar behaviour (e.g., seatbelt violations) can justify a tougher sanction.
A collision that cost a job
A mobile patrol officer with five years' service drove into a stationary car while looking at his mobile phone and not wearing a seatbelt. His incident report omitted both details. When G4S reviewed dash cam footage, it contradicted his account. The company dismissed him for gross misconduct.
The officer argued that the dismissal was unfair and that the real reason was a grievance he had raised, which he claimed contained protected disclosures. The tribunal rejected both arguments.
What the employer did right
G4S suspended the officer, held an investigation meeting, and gave him a disciplinary hearing. The decision-maker considered the CCTV evidence, the officer's inconsistent account, and his previous counselling for not wearing a seatbelt. The appeal was also properly considered. The tribunal found this process fell within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The officer's grievance was raised after the disciplinary process had started. The tribunal found it was not a protected disclosure and was made to bolster his position. Even if it had been a disclosure, it was not the reason for dismissal — the dishonest account was.
Key takeaway for employees
This case shows that honesty in incident reports is vital. A minor mistake can become gross misconduct if you try to cover it up. It also shows that raising a grievance after you are already in trouble is unlikely to protect you from dismissal.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
Catering manager with 16 years' service dismissed for alleged theft and bullying: employer's decision upheld
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a catering manager who was found guilty of gross misconduct for stealing tea bags and bullying a colleague, ruling that Serco Ltd's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Dismissed for breaching a COT3 agreement: tribunal finds employer's belief unreasonable
A Customer Care Assistant with 10 years' service was unfairly dismissed after being accused of breaching a COT3 settlement agreement. The tribunal awarded £9,074, but applied a 50% Polkey reduction.