Whistleblowing: EAT confirms disclosures must be considered in context

Jackson v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2026]

In this case, the EAT dismissed an appeal brought by a former senior police officer who alleged he had suffered whistleblowing detriments and had been constructively dismissed after making disclosures to the Independent Policy Complaints Commission (IPCC).

The Claimant relied on three whistleblowing reports submitted to the IPCC, contending that they contained multiple protected disclosures concerning alleged cronyism, misconduct, failures in major criminal investigations and risk to public safety within Greater Manchester Police. Following a lengthy Employment Tribunal Hearing lasting 102 days, the Tribunal concluded that none of the alleged disclosures qualified for statutory whistleblowing protection and held that the Claimant had not been constructively dismissed.

An issue on appeal was whether the Tribunal had been entitled to look beyond selected extracts of the Claimant’s reports and whether wider context of the documents should have been considered when determining whether protected disclosures had been made.

The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s approach, finding that a Claimant could not selectively rely on favourable parts of a disclosure while ignoring closely connected allegations contained within the same document. When assessing the disclosure made to prescribed person under section 43F of Employment Rights Act 1996, a Tribunal is entitled to consider the following disclosed “in context and in the round.”

The EAT rejected the Claimant’s argument that Tribunal had effectively imposed a requirement that disclosures be “95% true.” Instead, it determined that the Tribunal had correctly adopted an assessment of whether the Claimant reasonably believed the substance of the information and allegations to be substantially true.

The Claimant additionally challenged the Tribunal’s finding that he had not been constructively dismissed. The EAT held that this issue was effectively academic because no protected disclosures had been established.

If your business is dealing with a whistleblowing complaint or potential protected disclosure, Backhouse Jones’ Employment team can advise on the appropriate next steps.

This article was written by Gabrielle Scriven.