EAT DSTL v Wilkins.

[Signalbox]

Anyone following this EAT case?

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2115014039839371382

We are reporting today from the Employment Appeal Tribunal of Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (or DSTL) v Wilkins. DSTL is appealing. Dr Peter Wilkins, a civil servant, won an employment tribunal case in March 2025 for constructive dismissal, harassment and direct discrimination based on his protected gender-critical beliefs.

After nearly 15 years at the Ministry of Defence research facility, Dr Wilkins, then an Innovation Partner at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down, resigned in November 2022 and brought legal proceedings due to a “hostile and intimidatory environment”.

He had raised concern over several posts on an internal blog, which labelled gender-critical views as “abusive”, and was flagged as a security risk by colleagues after he liked a social media post by a gender-critical organisation.

Employment Judge Gary Self of the Southampton Employment Tribunal ruled in Dr Peter Wilkin's favour, finding a “clear hostile animus” towards gender-critical beliefs within DSTL

DSTL appealed the ruling in April 2025, arguing that the tribunal had insufficiently considered colleagues’ freedom of expression, misapplied the legal test for harassment, failed to account for Dr Wilkins’ exposure to internal comments, and inadequately balanced colleagues’ human rights.

This is a contemporaneous account of a public hearing, reported in good faith. It is not a verbatim transcript or stenographic record. We aim to report fairly and accurately without bias or prejudice.

EATs are hard to report due to the pace of arguments and case names. This is a case we did not report at first instance. We will do our best.

Full coverage, abbreviations, judgment dated 13 March 2025 of Dr P Wilkins v Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and any publicly available documents will be posted on our Substack: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com

J - Mr Justice Coppel, sitting with a panel of two lay people A or DSTL – Defence Science and Technology Laboratory - appellant R or PW – Dr Peter Wilkins respondent on appeal

JR – Jane Russell KC (counsel for DSTL) SK – Spencer Keen (counsel for Wilkins)

PK – Paul Keeley (senior DSTL manager; criticised for creating hostile environment and stating GC views could be held but “not OK” to express) LO – Lynn O’Donnell (PRISM lead; author of Line Manager’s Guide to Supporting LGBT+ staff; Distillery posts on Sophie Scott / Kathleen Stock)

ST – Sue / Susan Taylor (HR) SS – Prof Sophie Scott (GC academic referenced in Distillery posts) KS – Prof Kathleen Stock (GC academic referenced in Distillery posts

GC and GCB - Gender Critical Beliefs EA - Equality Act 2010 CSC - Civil Service Code FoS - Freedom of Speech P or Prism - the DSTL sexual orientation and gender identity network DP - Distillery Posts

Thanks - wasn't aware.

I wasn't aware either and my first thought is that if scientists working on biological and chemical warfare and allied topics have lost sight of the absolute basics of biology we're all doomed.

Jane Russell KC - I remember her in the Peggie case!

From TT...

The court is about to sit. Mr Justice Coppel is sitting with a panel.

J has read application and WS. Notes the appellant is neutral. Respondent wishes to continue if successful and if possible for Miss Mills to replaced. if not possible for her to replaced at short notice then hear the appeal myslef.

J - application is well founded and shd be accepted. If Miss Mills can't be replaced then appeal shd be adjourned. In Higgs, was heard by J. Delays in Higgs gave good reason to proceed. Provisional view is case shd be adjourned for replacement for Miss Mills and relist asap.

SK - wouldn't disuade on conclusion. Parties are of one mind to proceed and hear matters today. In resect of PW resigned in Nov 22, orig EAT hearing fixed for April 2026 - no J available. All the time remedy awaits

SK We accept there is likely to be some discussion of the objectiinability of some of the underlying material that members would help with. But much of the material is [legal].

SK so it may be that A takes a differennt view - as the objectinability evidence (OE) is main thrust of the appeal. This is a technical judgment - furter delay not necessaitated. PW very keen to get on with it. Keen to get matter dealt with. Urge you, both parties, to get it on the road.

JR - depends on timing for relisting. Did Et set the bar too low for harassments, and whether the material is objectionable or inappropriate. So wing members would ideally be present. As long as delay is not too long.

J [long pause while thinking] I'll give a short judgment.

J Listed b4 trib today, an aappeal by DSTL v a decsion of ET sitting in outhampton, March 2025, wh upheld claims of harrasment direct disc and constructive unfair dismissal.

Dr W successfully claimed he had been disc on basis of philosophical belief (para 6 of judgemnt) - a GCB sex is biologically immutable [too fast ]

in brief summary ET found that A had taken sides in GI v GC debate, in favour of gender self Id and took steps to suppress GC beliefs. Wide ranging appeal - eg ET ruling places emps in impossible position have to impinge of those who have belief in Gi or may be protected under gender assignment.

Note: we will post this oral judgment if it is published in written form.

J Miss Mills is experienced trade unionist and is Unison's head of equality and responsible for implementing unison's policy. R made appplication for recusal of Mis Mills as MM and Unison oppose FWS. Mr Justice Eadie in Higgs acceoted application for recusal on grounds of apparent bias re a unionist.

J refers to SOG's witness statement (WS) researching MM - paras 20 d, k, l, m and n. Concern poistion of Union and TUC (MM is on TUC) against EHRC code of practice.

Higgs case para 17-27 will be read into transcript of this judgment. Eadie - para 26 - in all cases Mr Morris would abide by his judicial oath but is publicly associated with public position of one side of this debate. Note: We will add this to our substack as goo fast to transcribe.

I have no doubt MM would [follow] her official oath. As in Higgs, issues at heart of debate which arise in case and appeal, and two orgs [Union and TUC] have a view and campiagned against the GC views of sort expressed by PW, and which ET found inadequately protected.

Stronger in this case as MM still occupies position at TC and Unison. secondly MM was signatory to TUC letter to the Govt referred to in paragraph 21 a of SO's WS. Application succeeds.

Both parties are content for appeal to continue. However listed with appointed members as controversial issues with wide spread implications for workplaces.

JR disagreed with SK and said that issues on objectionability would benefit from views of appointed members (AM).

EAT appeal has been handled [fast] - not pressing need to avoid further delay. Tribunal hearing is adjourned for panel members to be appointed.

J will do what he can to ensure re-listing is fast.

SK - case management matter. Been handed a fresh bundle of papers today. J - not seen them.

J clarifies. JR - suggests she makes an application. Only one contentious document re a workplace group advocating for GC views.

JR - suggests SK says what docs he objects to and then JR will make an application. Court rises.

So we will return to report this case when it is relisted.

Drama already!

Well that was short and sweet!

What just happened? 😆

The claimant objected to Gloria Mills the panel member from Unison who had signed the letter to the government decrying EHRC Guidance. I think that the respondent was happy to continue without Miss Mills but the judge thought that there should be a full panel so the EAT is being relisted for another date.

Wait, what?

It looks like one or possibly both lay members of the panel could be open to bias due to trade union roles.

This doesn’t mean the lay members would show bias but should recused so as to avoid the perception of potential bias.

Given that Miss Mills signed the TUC letter to the government whining about the EHRC Guidance I think she should have recused herself before today so that there was no need to postpone the EAT. It's screamingly obvious that her sitting in this particular case was completely inappropriate.

I was aware of the case and that there was going to be an appeal but didn’t know when, looks like a good one to follow.

That’ll teach me to read the thread first 😂

It’s worth remembering what happened with Kristie Higgs’ ultimately successful EAT appeal - two panel members including the notorious Edward Lord had to recuse themselves and the judge heard the appeal solo.

I think this is the first appeal by a respondent in any of the rash of ET claims by people harassed or bullied for GC views.

I’ll be interested to know what grounds they are appealing on.

The Higgs case was discussed this morning. The judge said that it was because there were significant delays in that case that justified the judge sitting alone.

Thanks all, I hadn’t worked out that Miss Mills was on the panel (not very bright…)

It dragged on for years.

From TT Substack;

"The appeal was listed on 25th October 2026 to be heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London over three days beginning 27th October 2026. This was when the Respondent saw that one of the panel members listed was Miss Gloria Mills, who serves as the National Secretary for Equalities at UNISON and member of the TUC Executive Committee. Both organisations are campaigning against the Equality Act on the matter of sex based rights, and have criticised the EHRC guidance and the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment. The R made an application for Miss Mills to be replaced. This was accepted, and the Judge has sent to case to be relisted so a new panel can be appointed to sit with him."

(My bold)

The amount of public money wasted on persecuting employees for GC beliefs must be considerable by now.

Hope Dr Wilkins wins.

The original ET judgment was pretty scathing about DSTL & certain named individuals so it's well worth a read. Here is an excerpt from the conclusions.

a) We accept that from the beginning of the chronology in this Claim the
Claimant raised complaints up until the date of resignation and the
Respondent failed to adequately address the Claimant’s concerns that he
was being harassed and /or discriminated against on account of his
gender critical views. There were also times when there was actually no
response at all to those complaints. The complaints were legitimate, they
were having an adverse effect on the Claimant, yet they were not dealt
with adequately. The growing sense of dismay the Claimant felt at the
Respondent’s lack of action or even real recognition of his concerns is
clear and fully understandable.

b) There was a marked reluctance to acknowledge or deal with the
harassment and discrimination raised by the Claimant and we accept that
the Claimant was treated less favourably than a complainant would have
been had the issues been any other protected characteristic or indeed
almost any other belief. The key reason for this was an unblinking desire
to ensure that those with gender identity views were fully supported and a
failure to engage with the thought that a gender critical view was worthy
and was required to be respected.

c) We are quite satisfied that a particular side was taken on the gender
identity / critical debate, and we also accept that the Respondent did not
act impartially and thereby failed to act in accordance with the Civil Service
Code in relation to the Claimant.

d) We accept that the Claimant was discriminated against over a substantial
period of time by the Respondent

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e971UwBt2Gv6QfWrOzfMYeIwRQox_ynn/view?usp=drivesdk

It’s bizarre this wasn’t dealt with weeks ago. This can’t even be described as “unconscious” bias. Did Ms Mills just keep her fingers crossed that nobody would notice?

.

Any legal bods here?

I am just wondering what it has cost to have instructing solicitors, barristers, judge, 2 panel members, claimant and respondent and court time… all down in Southampton(?)…..only to establish that one of the panel members ought to have recused themselves (sounds a slam dunk valid reason to be recused to me, but I am probably biased).

I appreciate that the EAT judge shouldn’t cherry pick a panel, but surely this could have been dealt with days ago?

Panel members ought to be aware that their CV/Socials will be examined in detail for cases like this.