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

What a total waste of time and money, very often public money.

Shows the overwhelming self regard of these people believing that their biased / intolerant views are acceptable (she complained about the EHRC guidance) and that nobody will complain. 🙄

The EAT sits in the Rolls Building on Fetter Lane in London. Convenient for barristers who have chambers in London, but presumably others had to travel from Porton Down or wherever.

I used to sit on one of the professional fitness to practice committees we were advised that the total cost was approx. £16000 per day.

Thank for highlighting, OP. So it seems this case will be very significant as the outcome will set a precedent, yes? If DSIT successfully appeal, then will it mean that harassing GC members in the workplace will simply be considered free expression? Quite chilling if that's the case. GC employees already have enough to content with.

Sorry, DSTL, not DSIT.

I remember the case, I hope he wins, again.

The colossal waste of money, tax payers money, should be addressed, I wonder if an organisation like the Tax Payers Alliance could start focusing on it.
Given how many of the people in the pool for the panels are connected to unions, trying to find someone who isn't likely to be biased is going to prove more and more difficult.
I do like to think that the person from the union will now lose any money that she would have been paid for sitting on the panel. Maybe it'll give her a badly needed insight into how others have suffered because of this ideology she and her union are promoting.

Yes, that’s I think what’s being aimed for, I agree with you.

I’ve just read the entire judgment. The bullying was quite bad.

Yes, I remember it at the time. Fingers crossed the decision isn't overturned.

Yes, but being an activist and trans ally, she'd do nothing of sort, using this opportunity to advance the cause.

I'm out of the loop, hadn't even realised DSTL were appealing. That was quite a legal spanking they were on the end of first time round.

I think we all remember Jane!

Thereby showing she has no professional integrity. I think she should have to pay the costs personally. She made a deliberate decision not to recuse herself or advise there was a probable conflict.

Wouldn’t be surprised if she’s gutted at being sussed and had hoped to still panel the appeal. Those pesky GC people need putting in their bigoted places.

Lurking on here somewhere!

www.linkedin.com/posts/pcw1_tobecontinued-share-7520958295960907776-wKo8

👋

Outrageous she didn't refuse herself.

All the best, try to put it out of your mind and enjoy Bonfire night and Christmas.

Well well, we have discovered a use for those petition letter things. Handy.

Thanks that was informative, from the horses mouth as it were.
I wonder why the judge wouldn't take responsibility for hearing the appeal on their own?
It doesn't surprise me that nothing has changed in the workplace after the ETA, the fact that they're appealing means they obviously still think they did nothing wrong.

Yes indeed 😁 they're going to prove very useful. 😂

I have just been reading the ET judgment. The judge had some good comments: "The moderators would appear to have been very busy" (para 34); "The comments on this article which seem to all be written in work time extends between pages 143 and 159 of our bundle" (para 71).

MN got a mention!