Prison officers unfairly dismissed after flawed misconduct investigation
An employment tribunal has ruled that three residential prison officers were unfairly dismissed after being accused of assaulting a prisoner. The tribunal found that the employer’s investigation was fundamentally flawed and that the decision to dismiss fell outside the range of reasonable responses expected of a reasonable employer.
Two of the officers were also granted reinstatement orders, returning them to their roles from January 2026, underlining the seriousness of the procedural failures identified.
The officers worked at a Scottish prison as residential officers, primarily carrying out physical training duties but also working overtime as general prison officers. Their dismissals followed an allegation by a prisoner that he had been assaulted inside his cell after officers responded to an emergency alarm triggered during an altercation between prisoners.
While CCTV footage existed for areas outside the cell, there was no camera coverage inside individual cells. This meant the allegation relied heavily on witness evidence, making the quality and handling of the investigation particularly important.
The tribunal was highly critical of the investigation process. It found that the employer had failed to comply with its own disciplinary procedures in a material way. In particular, a number of witness statements relied upon were not signed, despite the internal procedure requiring signed statements.
Most significantly, the prisoner’s statement itself was unsigned. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that this was a minor administrative oversight and concluded that this failure alone was sufficient to render the dismissals unfair.
The tribunal also criticised the investigation for failing to properly examine inconsistencies in the prisoner’s accounts. It found there was no attempt to analyse or test these inconsistencies and that the allegation was effectively accepted at face value. The investigation report was described as unbalanced, both in the way information was presented and in the lack of meaningful analysis.
Concerns were also raised about the role of the dismissing officer. The tribunal found that he failed to request further investigation into issues raised during the disciplinary process and that comments made during the hearings indicated he had already formed a view. The tribunal concluded that his decision-making had been influenced by media coverage of the incident and that he had reached a decision to dismiss at an early stage.
Overall, the tribunal found that there were no reasonable grounds for the employer to believe the officers had committed the alleged misconduct. It noted that the allegation had not been subjected to proper scrutiny and that no explanation had been given for why the prisoner’s evidence was preferred over that of multiple prison officers. As a result, the investigation was found not to be reasonable in the circumstances, and the dismissals were ruled unfair.
Two of the officers were ordered to be reinstated to their roles, with compensation awarded for loss of earnings between dismissal and reinstatement. The third officer did not seek reinstatement and was awarded compensation and a basic award instead.
This case is a strong reminder that in misconduct and gross misconduct cases, the reason for dismissal is only part of the picture. Employers must also act reasonably in all the circumstances. That includes carrying out a fair and balanced investigation, following internal procedures, testing evidence, exploring inconsistencies and avoiding any appearance that the outcome has been predetermined.
Tribunals recognise that investigations do not need to be perfect or exhaustive. However, where procedural failures are material, evidence is not properly scrutinised, or decision-makers appear to have closed minds, dismissals are at significant risk of being found unfair.
Contact us at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk and we can discuss and further queries you may have on this subject.
0800 9995 121 
enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk
Follow us
Connect with us
Like us
iPhone App
Client Vacancies
121 HR Blog