A solicitor who claimed he did not pass his probation with the Crown Prosecution Service because of race discrimination has been told the case must be dismissed.

The claimant, listed as Mr D Liu, had tried to ask the employment tribunal to reconsider an order from 2019 that the claim was out of time, saying that new evidence was now available to him.

Employment Judge Barker, sitting at the London South tribunal, said Liu had no fresh cause of action and ruled that each of the latest allegations had already been previously considered. The claimant was barred from re-litigating matters due to cause of action estoppel.

The tribunal had heard that Liu, who was said in the ruling to be employed as a solicitor, was with the CPS from March 2017 to September 2017 when he was dismissed on the grounds of capability. He did not successfully complete his probation period. 

Crown Prosecution Service

The CPS submitted that the manner of the proceedings amounted to misuse of the legal process to abuse others

Source: Alamy

Liu tried to argue that his line manager at the CPS had blocked his probation progression by making him repeat the first month every month until his dismissal. He claimed to have been excluded from group meetings due to his manager not sending him notification, while his white colleagues did receive their invites.

The first claim was dismissed in 2019 because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them, it was out of time and there was no good reason for the delay in presenting it.

In his latest claim, Liu accepted that he had disclosure of some calendar invites, but claimed these were ‘bogus’ and created with the purpose of misleading the tribunal. He repeatedly asserted that he was discriminated against on the basis of race and pointed out he was replaced in his role by a white person.

The CPS submitted that the manner of these proceedings, including personal attacks on its staff, amounted to ‘scandalous’ conduct and a misuse of the legal process to abuse others. It was submitted that Liu was ‘clearly relitigating points’ from a claim already dismissed.

The judge said it was not necessary to consider the issue of the prospects of success and that this was an ‘identical’ claim to the already-dismissed one.