Non-confidential facts and advice to the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC)
1. Introduction and background
1.1. Part 2 of this Report is exempt because it falls within an exemption specified in para 2(2) of the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 and/or under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, e.g. because the information amounts to personal data, is confidential or commercially sensitive.
1.2. The Claimant, a serving police officer, successfully brought a claim before the Employment Tribunal for sex discrimination and victimisation. The parties are exploring settlement as an alternative to the remedy hearing.
2. Issues for consideration
3. Financial Comments
3.1. Pursuant to the MOPAC Scheme of Delegation dated September 2013, MOPAC must authorise the settlement because it fulfils the criteria set out in section 5.7 of the Scheme including the financial level.
3.2. The proposed cost of the settlement can be met from within the DLS third party claims provision budget.
4. Legal Comments
4.1. MOPAC the power to pay any sum required in connection with the settlement for any claim made against the Commissioner under Section 88 of the Police Act 1996.
4.2. Pursuant to the MOPAC Scheme of Consent and Delegation 2014, MOPAC must authorise the settlement because it fulfils the criteria set out in section 4.10 of the Scheme including the financial level.
5. Equality Comments
5.1 To continue policing with the consent of the population it serves, the police will always seek to treat everyone fairly and openly. Equality issues did have relevance to this matter.
6. Background/supporting papers
• Exempt report