Payout for paedophile over firing

TAXPAYERS must pay a paedophile thousands of pounds after a tribunal ruled it was unfair to sack him after his arrest.

The pervert’s payout came just months after a jury ruled he had sexually assaulted a schoolgirl.

He was suspended for 11 months – on full pay – from his £20,000-a-year HMRC admin job following his arrest in April 2018.

Bosses told workmates he was off with a bad back but worried about “reputational” damage – as well as the cost to the public purse – they sacked him five months before his trial.

In doing so, a tribunal held in North Shields ruled HMRC had “acted unreasonably.”

“Had it acted reasonably, it would have waited and would have assessed the position on conclusion of the criminal trial,” ruled employment judge Seamus Sweeney.

The pervert, who cannot be named, had his 21-month jail sentence suspended for two years and was ordered to carry out 300 hours of unpaid work when he was sentenced in court last September.

However, HMRC must pay the sex offender eight months’ wages – although the judge slashed the amount he will receive significantly.

Papers show the claimant had been in his job for 13 years when his crime came to light. He was suspended almost immediately.

Police eventually charged him in November 2018. His suspension, which had already been reviewed six times, was continued.

Later that month, bosses were told they had two choices - wait for the case to conclude, or move to dismiss him “due to the working relationship being no longer viable.”

Six days before Christmas, the man appeared before magistrates to deny the charges. His case was committed for trial in August 2019.

However, that February an internal report suggested sacking him was “now appropriate” given he

would have been suspended on full pay for 17 months by the time the trial started.

He was invited to a meeting in the March, five months before his trial date, where he claimed he was “willing to work” while HMRC said he could not as his bail conditions prevented him going into an office where young staff worked.

“That was, of course, incorrect,” ruled Judge Sweeney. “The claimant had no such bail conditions.”

Facing another five months suspended on full pay, bosses deemed it “no longer reasonable” to continue paying him. However, the tribunal ruled he could have been retained, pending the trial outcome, on reduced or even no pay.

Awarding compensation, Judge Sweeney limited it to losses sustained from his dismissal on March 22 to 30 November – when he “would have been fairly dismissed” due to his conviction.

Wages earned from September 14 onwards were halved to reflect the likelihood he would have been suspended without pay upon conviction. HMRC declined to comment.