News

Judge fired for watching porn at work claims disability discrimination in employment tribunal battle

By on
7

Warren Grant says he was unfairly sacked

lead1

A disgraced former judge who was sacked for watching porn on court computers is in court today claiming that the government unfairly sacked him.

Immigration specialist Warren Grant fell from grace in March last year when he, along with two others judges, was removed from his judicial position for viewing “pornographic material on judicial IT equipment”. Grant is reported to have accessed websites including Pleasure Zone, Spicy Tranny and Retro Porn Hub.

According to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice concluded “this was an inexcusable misuse” of his judicial IT account and “wholly unacceptable conduct for a judicial office holder”.

Cambridge-educated former solicitor Grant, 61, has now raised doubts about the lawfulness of the sacking, and has made an employment law claim against the Ministry of Justice because of it. The 61 year-old — citing the Disability Discrimination Act — has said that his behaviour stemmed from a mental illness he was suffering from that was triggered by problems with his marriage. The illness has been reported by Metro to be depression.

The respondent has defended the claim, and reiterated that Grant broke strict guidelines when he used his work IT account to access the explicit websites.

The London Central Employment Tribunal has heard from Matrix Chambers barrister Mathew Purchase that:

This wasn’t a case of watching pornography one or two times, or even 10 or 20 times, but was persistent — several times a day — over a 14-month period or so.

The case has been before the London Central Employment Tribunal all week, including today, and a decision is expected shortly. A tribunal is able to award between £18,000 and £30,000 in damages if it finds serious disability discrimination.

As the matter is still ongoing, the Judicial Office declined to comment.

7 Comments

Anonymous

Why is the writer of this article anonymous?

(1)(1)

Anonymous

And why is the article open to comments?

(4)(0)

Anonymous

its the return of 4ACRES!!!!!!!!!

(1)(0)

Anonymous

TIL I have a mental illness.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Whoever wrote it, the info on damages is completely wrong.

(14)(0)

Gus

I think he was furrly sac’d!

(1)(0)

Gaz the Chav

This post has been removed because it breaches Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)

Comments are closed.