Wynne v Raven Security Services Limited and Nuno Abreu: [2024] TRE 143

Michael Wynne (the Claimant) was denied entry to The Mary Rose Bar by Nuno Abreu (Mr Abreu), a door security guard employed by Raven Security Services Limited (Raven).  The Claimant alleged that Mr Abreu subjected him to homophobic verbal abuse by saying “you’re too much of a queen” and repeatedly shouting “go home queen” when he was denied entry, claiming harassment under Article 28 of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013.

The Claimant’s partner, Alex Fergusson-Cooper (Mr Fergusson-Cooper), supported his account, claiming to have heard the derogatory remarks. The Claimant filed a Claim Form on 5^th June 2024.  The Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant could prove on the balance of probabilities that the words “queen” were used in a harassing manner.

The Tribunal’s investigation involved testimonies from the Claimant, Mr Ferguson-Cooper, Mr Abreu, Ryan Dransfield (Mr Dransfield), and others, including evidence from Advocate Gregory White. Mr Abreu and Mr Dransfield both denied using homophobic language and stated the denial of entry was due to the Claimant appearing intoxicated. Mr Abreu provided evidence that the Claimant was swaying and spoke unclearly, supporting the view that intoxication was the primary reason for denial.

Key issues included the Claimant’s inconsistent recollection of the evening (e.g., differing descriptions of his attire and the events) and Mr Fergusson-Cooper’s failure to preserve video footage, which cast doubt on the reliability of their testimonies. Furthermore, CCTV footage from the bar, reviewed by Raven’s director, did not show any aggressive behaviour by Mr Abreu or support the claim of repeated verbal abuse.

The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant and Mr Fergusson-Cooper were likely intoxicated during the incident, affecting their recollections. The evidence from Mr Abreu, Mr Dransfield, and CCTV footage suggested that the only explanation for the denial of entry was intoxication, not homophobic harassment. The Tribunal also found that Mr Fergusson-Cooper’s Facebook post claiming to have homophobic slurs on video was misleading and further undermined the reliability of the evidence.

Key Takeaways

Improved Documentation and Evidence Retention

• For Individuals: In future incidents involving discrimination or harassment claims, it is crucial to retain all relevant evidence (e.g., videos, photos, communications) as soon as possible. Mr Fergusson-Cooper’s failure to preserve the video footage led to questions about the credibility of his testimony and weakened the claim. Individuals should ensure they backup digital evidence immediately, particularly in legal contexts.
• For Security Staff/Employers: Security companies should establish protocols for ensuring that all evidence, such as CCTV footage and recordings from employees, is retained for an adequate period of time (e.g., beyond the usual 30-day retention window) if it could be relevant to any potential claims. This would prevent loss of critical evidence in disputes.

2. Training on Discrimination Law and Dealing with Intoxicated Customers

• For Security Companies: The case highlights the importance of ongoing training for security staff regarding discrimination laws, particularly around the use of potentially offensive language. While Mr Abreu had received training 16 months prior, it would be beneficial to offer regular refresher training to ensure staff remain well-informed about both legal obligations and the importance of sensitivity toward customers, especially when dealing with intoxicated individuals.
• For Bar Owners and Managers: It is important to ensure that staff are trained to manage situations involving intoxication professionally, without resorting to discrimination or harsh language. This includes recognizing signs of intoxication and addressing them appropriately, without violating a customer’s rights.

1. Clearer Communication with Customers

• For Security Staff: Mr Abreu’s actions during the incident suggest some confusion or lack of clarity in communication with the Claimant. It is crucial for security personnel to clearly and politely communicate the reasons for denying entry (e.g., intoxication) rather than resorting to vague or possibly discriminatory language. Training staff to respond calmly and consistently to such situations may prevent misunderstandings and disputes.
• For Customers: Customers should be aware of how their actions (e.g., alcohol consumption, behaviour) might be perceived by door staff and understand the reasons behind decisions regarding entry. If they feel unfairly treated, asking for a clear explanation in a respectful manner could help de-escalate the situation.

2. Awareness of Legal Implications

• For Employers and Employees in the Hospitality Sector: Both employers and employees should understand the serious legal implications of discrimination and harassment claims. Mr Abreu’s potential use of the word “queen,” even if not substantiated, could have had severe repercussions for Raven and its staff. Security staff should understand that discriminatory language or actions could expose them and their employer to legal claims, even if such behaviour is unintentional or minor.
• For Claimants: Those pursuing discrimination claims should ensure they are fully prepared with consistent and reliable evidence, especially when alleging something as serious as harassment. The case illustrates the importance of presenting clear, verifiable evidence and the difficulty in proving such claims without strong corroborating materials.

3. Re-evaluation of CCTV Footage Retention Policies

• For Bars/Clubs: Given that CCTV footage can be critical in resolving disputes, businesses should adopt policies ensuring that security footage is preserved long enough to be useful in the event of a complaint or legal action. The deletion of footage before the claim was filed in this case potentially harmed both the claimant’s case and the credibility of the bar’s security practices.

4. Public Relations and Communication with Customers

• For Employers: In cases where an incident occurs that might lead to a legal claim or reputational damage (such as accusations of discrimination), businesses should handle customer complaints professionally, providing clear responses and addressing any concerns promptly. The bar’s response to the Claimant, including an apology and the provision of contact details for Raven, was appropriate in this case. However, it is vital to follow up on any investigations in a transparent and accountable way.
• For Claimants: Customers considering filing discrimination claims should be cautious about making public statements on social media before fully understanding the facts of the situation, as inaccurate or incomplete posts could damage credibility.

Full Judgement Here