header-logo header-logo

01 March 2013
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment—Religious belief—Harassment

Heathfield v Times Newspaper Ltd UKEATPA/1305/12/BA

Employment Appeal Tribunal, Underhill J, 17 January 2013

The use of an expletive in a sentence containing “the Pope” was in the circumstances an expression of bad temper and not hostility to Roman Catholicism; it therefore did not amount to harassment within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (ERR 2003).

Michael Reed (instructed by the Free Representation Unit) for the employee.

In 2010 the employee worked as a subeditor for the employer, a well-known national newspaper.

On 12 March, during the visit of the Pope to the United Kingdom, the paper was preparing a story about the Pope having allegedly protected a paedophile priest. There was some delay in producing the story, and one of the editors, W, shouted across the room “Can anyone tell what’s happening to the fucking Pope?”.

There was no answer so he repeated the question more loudly. The employee, a Roman Catholic, took offence. He raised a complaint which in his view the newspaper failed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll