Prison officer dismissed for use of force: when CCTV is missing, can a fair process still stand?
Two prison officers at HMP Belmarsh were dismissed for gross misconduct after a physical altercation with a prisoner. The tribunal upheld the dismissals, finding the employer's investigation and disciplinary process were within the range of reasonable responses.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimants were prison officers at HMP Belmarsh.
- On 16 January 2022 they were involved in a physical interaction with prisoner GK.
- Both claimants were dismissed for gross misconduct after a disciplinary process.
- The investigation included expert evidence on use of force.
- A key witness changed her account during the disciplinary hearing.
- CCTV footage from outside the cell was not available at the hearing.
Timeline
-
Incident with prisoner GK
Claimants and other staff had a physical interaction with prisoner GK in a cell. Both claimants completed Use of Force forms stating GK punched Mr Smith first.
-
Prisoner complaint
GK filed a formal complaint alleging verbal abuse and assault by officers.
-
Scrutiny meeting
Use of force forms and body worn camera footage were reviewed; no concerns highlighted except a learning point about activating cameras earlier.
-
Management enquiry submitted
Manager Rachel Gill submitted her management enquiry report recommending a formal investigation after obtaining a contrasting account from Officer Fabian.
-
Suspension of claimants
Claimants were suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Expert report on use of force
Gareth Wheeler provided an expert report concluding that multiple strikes and use of rigid bar handcuffs were not justified.
-
Investigation report completed
Colin Davies completed his investigation report, finding a case to answer for assault/unnecessary use of force.
-
Dixon disciplinary hearing
Mr Dixon attended his disciplinary hearing with union representative.
-
Smith disciplinary hearing
Mr Smith attended his disciplinary hearing with union representative.
-
Churchill disciplinary hearing
Senior Officer Churchill changed her account, stating she could no longer confirm seeing GK punch Mr Smith first.
-
Reconvened disciplinary hearings
Both claimants attended reconvened hearings, questioned Officer Churchill, and made submissions. Governor Louis found the allegation proved and dismissed both claimants.
-
Dismissal letters
Governor Louis sent detailed letters setting out reasons for dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Both claimants attended appeal hearing before Deputy Director Will Styles; appeals were dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissals for gross misconduct were fair, focusing on whether the employer conducted a reasonable investigation and whether dismissal was a reasonable outcome given the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal, ruling that the Secretary of State for Justice had acted reasonably throughout.
Key reasons:
- The employer carried out a thorough investigation, including expert evidence on use of force.
- The disciplinary process allowed the claimants to challenge evidence and question witnesses.
- The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a reasonable employer.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can rely on expert evidence to assess complex conduct issues, such as use of force, even if CCTV is unavailable.
- A witness changing their account during a hearing does not automatically make the process unfair, as long as the employer considers the change properly.
- A thorough investigation and fair disciplinary process can protect a dismissal decision from being overturned, even if the employee disagrees with the outcome.
- Prison officers and other staff in high-risk roles should be aware that use of force incidents will be scrutinised, and initial accounts may be challenged later.
When a witness changes their story
Two prison officers at HMP Belmarsh were dismissed after a physical altercation with a prisoner in January 2022. Both officers initially stated that the prisoner had punched one of them first, justifying their use of force. However, during the disciplinary hearing, a key witness—Senior Officer Churchill—changed her account, saying she could no longer confirm seeing the punch. This shift, combined with expert evidence that the force used was excessive, led the dismissing governor to find the officers guilty of gross misconduct.
The officers argued that the process was unfair, particularly because CCTV footage from outside the cell was not available. But the tribunal noted that the employer had conducted a thorough investigation, including a management enquiry, an expert report on use of force, and a full disciplinary hearing where the officers could question witnesses. The absence of CCTV did not make the process unreasonable, as the employer had other evidence to rely on.
What the employer did right
The tribunal highlighted several aspects of the process that were fair: the officers were suspended on full pay, had union representation, were given the chance to challenge evidence, and had an appeal hearing. The dismissing governor considered all the evidence, including the changed witness account, and gave detailed reasons for the decision. The tribunal concluded that a reasonable employer could have reached the same conclusion.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that even when key evidence is missing—like CCTV—a dismissal can still be fair if the employer follows a robust process. For employees in high-risk roles like prison officers, it is important to understand that use of force incidents will be closely examined, and initial accounts may be scrutinised. The key lesson for employers is to ensure investigations are thorough and that disciplinary hearings allow employees to respond to all evidence against them.
Similar cases
Senior Nurse's race discrimination claim dismissed: tribunal finds no evidence of bias
A Ward Manager with 15 months' service claimed four white colleagues made false statements due to her race. The tribunal found no racial motivation and dismissed the claim.
13-year Tesco worker dismissed for showing explicit video: fair conduct decision
A customer assistant with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed after showing a sexually explicit video to a colleague. The tribunal upheld Tesco's decision, finding the investigation and dismissal were within the range of reasonable responses.
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.