Text Size: A A A
Burden of proof not extended in race victimisation cases

The Court of Appeal have set a legal precedent by ruling against the extenson of the “reverse” burden of proof in instances of racial victimisation. This is not consistent with the law in cases of direct or indirect discrimination or harassment where the reverse burden of proof applies.

Once certain elements of discrimination have been proved In race discrimination cases the burden of proof moves to the defendant, The rule was introduced in 2003 to make it easier for claimants to prove their cases.

In the case of Oyarce v Cheshire CC social worker Lucien Oyarce claimed she had been victimised by her employer Chesire County CC, she succeeded in her tribunal hearing, but subsequently saw the decision overturned at the Employments Appeals Tribunal and Court of Appeal

The wording of the Race Relations act makes a clear distinction between racial discrimination and victimisation and the courts seem to be following the statute as it was designed to the letter, perhaps not as intended.

Posted by Asif Yusuf

Publisher of Diversity Link

 

1

Leave Comment

Comments for article #140

Go Back to Previous Page