Summation presented at the conclusion of Tony Farrell's Employment Tribunal
Friday 9th September 2011
So, what is the legal case that Tony Farrell was unlawfully dismissed? To show that his dismissal was unlawful, we have to demonstrate that
South Yorkshire Police did not conduct an investigation that satisfies the standards required in Employment Law. To demonstrate that, we
must also show that Tony Farrell's view was not based on his religious beliefs (other than his deep religious conviction to tell the truth),
but on evidence that was sufficiently credible to warrant changing the crime threat assessment model used to guide local policing priorities.
Indeed, this was precisely the view of Judge Rostant in his reserved judgement at the pre-hearing review, issued on 16th June 2011; where he
stated, "Mr Farrell has reviewed all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the evidence points in one direction and not another.
Whilst as an intelligent man he is prepared to admit that he might be wrong in his analysis, he does not believe himself to be wrong."
(Page 42L in Bundle).
We do not ask you to believe that evidence, or agree with the conclusions that Tony Farrell has drawn from his analysis; only that he was
following the Police Staff Council's Standards of Professional Behaviour, with specific reference to the section on 'Honesty & Integrity'
(Page 269 in Bundle). We submit that Mr Farrell was indeed upholding the highest professional ideals by refusing to sign off or submit a
misleading report. His only motivation was to ensure that the 'Strategic Threat & Risk Assessment Matrix' took full, unadulterated
account of issues of relevance, validity, reliability and integrity. It is our contention that the South Yorkshire Police Authority
made no effort to establish the validity of the evidence discovered and offered by Mr Farrell, and therefore did not put itself into a
position to lawfully dismiss him. Thus, we would contend that it is the failure of South Yorkshire Police, the South Yorkshire Police
Authority and the South Yorkshire Police Authority's Appeals Committee, to undertake ANY review of Mr Farrell's submission, means that
the investigation was not thorough; did not take into account all relevant factors and was therefore unlawful.
With regard to the validity of Mr Farrell's newly discovered 'World View', we would offer the following examples of evidence to rebut claims
made yesterday. We do not do this to make a political point, and we do not to seek to convince you of its veracity, but to demonstrate
that Mr Farrell was exercising his well developed capacity for reason. This example, we contend, would lead any open-minded person to
want to review the inferences behind the model being offered on the Terrorism domain of the Strategic Threat & Risk Assessment Matrix
(as outlined in 'A Picture of an Ignoble Lie ... Page 83 in the Bundle).
NOTE: - At this point a copy of Dr Rory Ridley-Duff's paper titled:
'Theorising Truth: What Happened at Canary Wharf on 7th July 2005?' was passed to the Court Clerk ... but Judge Little refused to
accept the document!
This example shows that there is credible evidence that generates serious research activity. We would also point to the thousands of
professionals such as Professor David Ray Griffin (author of 'The New Pearl Harbour'; The 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions & Distortions'
& '9/11 and the Christian Faith'; as well as the many highly regarded academics and professionals in bodies like "Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth", "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" and "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" who discuss evidence (or lack of) in professional and academic
journals. This is clear evidence, all freely available in the public domain, that Mr Littleboy (Chairman of South Yorkshire Police
Authority Appeals Panel) believes does not exist.
This example is necessary today to refute the evidence given yesterday by Mr Littleboy; thereby countering the claim by Mr Littleboy
that anyone questioning the government accounts of 7/7 or 9/11 is holding, and I quote 'Outlandish views'. In this regard, Mr
Littleboy's impartialty as Chairman of the Appeals panel was compromised by his deeply held personal view.
[THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS VITALLY IMPORTANT]
If you conclude that there was enough credible evidence for Mr Farrell to be professionally concerned about the level of threat,
you must also conclude that the disciplinary investigation does not meet the standards required by Employment Law. An investigation
must be thorough. It must take into account ALL relevant factors before reaching a conclusion. It must not reach a conclusion in
advance of the hearing. In this case, the investigation was not thorough ... indeed, we would contend that it was non-existent.
Therefore, the investigation (such as it was), did not consider all relevant factors. As a result, by failing to undertake any
investigation, South Yorkshire Police effectively prejudged the outcome of the September 2nd dismissal hearing and this, by
definition, makes the decision unlawful.
The "investigations" at both the dismissal hearing and subsequent appeal were too superficial and spent a disproportionate amount
of time questioning or discussing Tony Farrell's mental health ... despite the Force Medical Advisor's Report of 27th July 2010
stating, "There is at this point no evidence of an ongoing underlying medical condition." (Page 122 in Bundle).
The evidence from both Mr Hiller and Mr Littleboy is absolutely clear and there is no doubt. Nobody - not an analyst; not a
manager; not a member of the disciplinary panel; nor the appeal panel, spent any time investigating the evidence that underpins
Mr Farrell's changed view on the strategic threat associated with the terrorism domain. There is absolutely no evidence that
anyone considered any evidence before concluding that Mr Farrell's views were 'outlandish'!
This is highly relevant from the point of view of Employment Law. There were no lawful grounds for dismissing Mr Farrell
because nobody at South Yorkshire Police had established the facts of the case. Mr Farrell updated his view on the threat
after considering evidence. This cannot be said for any other party involved in the disciplinary hearing or the appeal.
The standards required by Employment Law have not been met.
Let us now turn to the claim that awareness of a New World Order - and investigating the global context for terrorism -
is not relevant to the crime threat in South Yorkshire. I ask you to consider the view that this knowledge is both helpful
and integral to updating the local crime threat assessment. At present, the British Government takes the view that a
terrorist threat exists in Yorkshire because of local community connections to Pakistan. The official government narrative
on the events of 7/7, claims that people in Yorkshire, and particularly elements within the Pakistani communities of Yorkshire,
are a potential terrorist threat to the UK.
Sheffield, in South Yorkshire, has two Pakistani communities: one in Sharrow and the other in Nether Edge. It is beholden on
the Principal Analyst to consider the impact upon the community of any local connections to a global Islamic network.
It is therefore, surely, an imperative that the Principal Analyst is prepared to change the assumptions about the level of threat
from that community on the basis of newly collected evidence. We contend that 'Global terrorism' has a very real potential for
local impact: it is not separate from other crime assessments because its presence or absence will affect how a Principal Analyst
assesses many other forms of crime (such as money laundering, or incitement to religious hatred).
Let us finally consider the issue of whether it is the job of the police to take the government perspective on crime, and terrorism
in particular. Miss Barker, Mr Hiller and Mr Littleboy all take the view that anyone holding views on 7/7 and 9/11 similar to Mr
Farrell's, cannot work for South Yorkshire Police because their views are 'incompatible' with those of the force. This surely
cannot be grounds for dismissal in Employment Law.
Not only do we regularly learn of police forces investigating the crimes of politicians, we also see international tribunals in
which people from governments are held to account for acts against their own people. The police are free to investigate the
acts of politicians if there are firm grounds to believe they have broken the law. This is fundamental to our democratic culture
and we urge you not to set a precedent for changing it.
If the government acts unlawfully, it falls to individual members of the police force to raise, and then investigate, the actions
of its members. If warranted, the police have the power to take cases to the courts. This is central to our constitution.
If it were otherwise, we would be living under Police State fascism.
We trust the tribunal will consider the implications of agreeing with Miss Barker, Mr Hiller and Mr Littleboy on this matter.
It cannot be compatible with Employment Law for individuals within the police force to act unlawfully to protect their employer,
and cover up acts (including government acts) that they firmly believe to be unlawful. It MUST be possible for people working in
the police force to act congruently with their professional obligation to uphold the truth and protect the public from crime;
including the crimes committed by members of governments. This is what Mr Farrell felt he was doing, and nobody in the police
checked his evidence. As a result, there are no lawful grounds to dismiss him.
So, the views of Miss Barker, Mr Hiller and Mr Littleboy on Mr Farrell's 'incompatible views', and belief that it is justifiable
to dismiss him for them, cannot be correct in law. Mr Farrell has a professional duty not only to assess the threat of unlawful
actions by people in his own community, but also any threat to people of South Yorkshire from elsewhere (including members acting
covertly in the name of the government). If he fails to do so, he would be - as was put so tellingly to Mr Hiller (Chairman of
South Yorkshire Police Authority's Disciplinary Committee and Financial Controller of SYP) - submitting "incomplete accounts".
Submitting incomplete accounts means submitting a misleading view. In professional circles, knowingly submitting a misleading
view can be grounds for prosecution (at worst) or expulsion from the profession (at best). It is entirely understandable that
Mr Farrell would not submit a report that - in his professional judgement - was highly misleading. Mr Hiller cannot lawfully
dismiss him for upholding the professional standards held by South Yorkshire Police.
We trust that Employment Law is on the side of the employee if their actions are in good faith, are based on firm evidence, that
their motive is to ensure their employer acts lawfully, and that they are guided by professional standards that protect both the
police force and the public.
I cannot think of any profession, except perhaps your own Sir, where being prepared to establish and uphold the truth is more important.
South Yorkshire Police have acted unlawfully in dismissing Mr Farrell. South Yorkshire Police failed to conduct a thorough
investigation, failed to establish whether Mr Farrell's view were underpinned by credible evidence, and failed to take all relevant
factors into account during both the hearing and subsequent appeal before confirming his dismissal.
We ask the tribunal to reinstate him and that he be fully compensated for loss of earnings.
The Tribunal Panel rejected Tony Farrell's appeal against his Unfair Dismissal after deliberating for approximately 3.5 hours