4th July 2002

Bristol court kicks out karate defence

A judge at Bristol County Court has awarded damages against the Higashi Karate Kai association for wrongly disciplining two black members for making a complaint about racial discrimination and copying it to the CRE, the local Racial Equality Council, Bristol Law Centre, and to one of the sport’s governing bodies, the English Karate Governing Board.

Lloyd Russell and Winston Williams – whose case was backed by the CRE – were two of four heads of karate clubs affiliated to Higashi Karate Kai (HKK) who complained to HKK in July 1999. They alleged that Peter Spanton, the HKK chairman, and Dave Wheatley, of Bristol Karate Club, and a member of HKK’s executive committee, had on different occasions made racist comments about other fighters, calling them “black bastards”.

HKK’s executive committee dismissed their complaint but accepted that it had been made in good faith. But following official complaints by Mr Spanton and Mr Wheatley themselves, in February 2000 HKK’s disciplinary committee decided that Mr.Russell and Mr.Williams had brought the HKK into disrepute by copying their complaint to the other organisations. Mr.Russell was expelled from HKK, and Mr.Williams, whose membership had lapsed, was banned from rejoining.

Joel Donovan of Cloisters, barrister for Mr.Russell and Mr.Williams, argued that the disciplinary action amounted to victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976. The Act gives special protection to anyone taking action to deal with race discrimination.

His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC, sitting with race relations assessors, upheld the claim and on 23rd June awarded £4,500 to Mr.Williams and £5,000 to Mr.Russell.

The judge had found on the 18th May that:
· The fact that the allegations were about racism had affected the way that HKK dealt with them.
· The treatment of Mr.Russell and Mr.Williams contrasted unfavourably with the disciplinary action taken in the case of another member found to have assaulted another; he was only suspended for 6 months.
· It had not been unreasonable to copy the complaints to the outside bodies
· It was doubtful that doing so had led HKK into any “disrepute”.
· It would be unfortunate if, in such circumstances, potential complainants were unable to seek outside advice on presenting a complaint without fear of disciplinary action on the basis of bringing an organisation into disrepute.
Further information

For further information please contact:

At Cloisters:

Gerald Newman, Solicitor
Practice Director, Cloisters

Direct line: 020 7827 4050
Tel: 020 7827 4000
Fax: 020 7827 4100
Mobile: 07798 604851
Home: 020 8567 1543

geraldn@cloisters.com
www.cloisters.com

At the Council for Racial Equality:

Rebecca Crosby
Press Officer, CRE
020 7932 5354
020 7828 5680
rcrosby@cre.gov.uk

Notes for editors

About Cloisters

Cloisters is a set of 40 practising barristers, supported by 11 clerks and staff. Laura Cox QC is head of chambers. We specialize in employment, discrimination, personal injury, clinical negligence, public law and judicial review, commercial media and sports law.
This year, Cloisters celebrates the 50th anniversary of its establishment.

The lawyers involved

Joel Donovan of Cloisters, a barrister with a special interest in in employment and discrimination, represented Mr.Russell and Mr.Williams.

The Commission for Racial Equality supported their case. Mr.Donovan was instructed by Ken Averre of the CRE’s London office.

The Executive Committee of the Higashi Karate Kai association was represented by Parishil Patel of 39 Essex Street, instructed by Beachcroft Wansbroughs.

The Race Relations Act, victimisation and “protected actions”

The 1976 Race Relations Act provides the following protection for people who take action to deal with discrimination:

2.-(1) A person ("the discriminator") discriminates against another person ("the person victimised") in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if he treats the person victimised less favourably than in those circumstances he treats or would treat other persons, and does so by reason that the person victimised has-
(a) brought proceedings against the discriminator or
any other person under this Act; or
(b) given evidence or information in connection with
proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under this Act; or
(c) otherwise done anything under or by reference to
this Act in relation to the discriminator or any other person; or
(d) alleged that the discriminator or any other person
has committed an act which (whether or not the allegation so states) would amount to a contravention of this Act,
or by reason that the discriminator knows that the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do, any of them.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to treatment of a person by reason of any allegation made by him if the allegation was false and not made in good faith.

ENDS