Police Officers Win £50K Sex Discrimination Award Following Talia Storm Selfie Incident

Published : September 15, 2025

In PC Steven Jones and PC Greg Tunnock v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland, two former firearms officers have received a sex discrimination award after successfully bringing a claim to the employment tribunal. The pair had been reassigned following a video of them taking a selfie with a Scottish celebrity, which was deemed potentially sexist and said to further damage the police service’s reputation amid prior controversy over institutional sexism. The tribunal, however, dismissed this notion, stating that a female officer in the same circumstances wouldn’t have been sacked.

Read on as we examine exactly what happened and how the tribunal came to its decision. We discuss examples of workplace sex discrimination, how to prove it and the steps individuals can take to overcome mistreatment. If you’ve faced sex discrimination in the workplace, please reach out to Redmans Solicitors today. As specialists in the employment sector, our experienced team can discuss your options and determine your eligibility to claim compensation.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help you, simply:

Phone us directly on 020 3397 3603
Give us a callback via our online form

The Facts in PC Steven Jones and PC Greg Tunnock v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland

Background to Sex Discrimination Award

PC Steven Jones (“the First Claimant”) and PC Greg Tunnock (“the Second Claimant”) were firearms officers for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (“the Respondent”) based at Fettes, Edinburgh. Both were highly regarded, with awards and clean disciplinary records, having completed their firearms training on 16 June 2023 and 8 October 2021, respectively.

Prior to the events in question, the Respondent encouraged officers to share images showcasing positive police engagement with the public. On 20 January 2020, it invited staff to submit policing images, offering a badge for any featured on social media.

The Tallia Storm Incident

Trouble began on 1 March 2024, when the Claimants were patrolling near the Scottish Parliament. They had a “locked armoury” in their car and were carrying a Glock and a taser.

While on patrol, they noticed a crowd and slowed down to investigate. On approach, the Second Claimant spotted Tallia Storm, a Scottish singer, and stopped to ask if she knew the cause. Ms Storm explained that she was to conduct a Q&A with a “popular musician” and people were gathering to take part.

Immediate Suspension and Reassignment

By 4 March, both Claimants faced temporary suspensions of their firearms authorisations. An article in the Scottish Sun then reached Assistant Chief Constable Gary Ritchie, who stated such behaviour had no place in armed policing.

He informed the Claimants on 8 March that they would be permanently removed from armed duties and reassigned from the Operational Services Division (OSD). ACC Ritchie was concerned about the “optics” of the video, perceiving the Claimants’ actions as potentially sexist and damaging to progress on addressing institutional sexism within the unit.

Professional Standards Findings and FARI Recommendations

On 13 March, the Professional Standards Department (PSD) found both Claimants guilty of discreditable conduct and recommended improvement action. Their firearms authorisations remained suspended, with OSD senior management tasked with considering reinstatement.

FARI officer Inspector Bruce Crawford, the independent link between management and officers on firearms authorisation, then reported on 28 March. He recommended reinstatement, subject to additional EDI and roads policing training. Inspector Andrew Miller pushed this recommendation, highlighting the Claimants’ remorse, distinguished records, and significant investment in their training. Nonetheless, ACC Ritchie ignored the report, describing their conduct as “completely unacceptable,” citing poor judgement and public perceptions of male officers toward females.

The Claim That Led to the Sex Discrimination Award

In the meantime, on 12 April, a formal grievance was submitted by the Claimants about the permanent withdrawal of their firearms authorisations. Investigations were delayed, and by 30 September, the grievances hadn’t been upheld. Despite calls for ACC Ritchie to consider alternative OSD roles, none were offered, and on 25 October, he instructed them to complete transfer forms, excluding OSD positions.

Understandably, the Claimants were deeply upset. They had already been assigned “menial tasks” in front of colleagues following their suspensions, which they found humiliating, and the new directive forced them to make a pressured decision in an unreasonably short time.

They appealed their initial grievance on 7 October and submitted a second grievance on 27 October, alleging workplace sex discrimination. Both were unsuccessful, though, and only compounded their mental health struggles. For reference, they had required multiple periods of sick leave and counselling, with the First Claimant reconsidering his career and the Second Claimant’s wife fearing for his safety.

By 14 November, the Claimants brought claims to the employment tribunal for sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation. Given the common facts, both claims were combined for the hearing.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Respondent Claims Decision Didn’t Constitute Sex Discrimination in the Workplace

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal considered ACC Ritchie’s decision to remove the Claimants’ firearms authorisations and transfer them out of the OSD. The Claimants asserted that a female officer in the same situation—i.e., stopping to have their picture with a celebrity, followed by mass public reaction—wouldn’t have received the same treatment.

The Respondent, however, argued that a female officer in the same situation wasn’t a suitable comparator. This was because the unit’s previous issues concerned institutional sexism, specifically regarding the treatment of female officers by male officers—not the other way around.

Therefore, the Respondent argued that a more suitable comparator would be a female officer whose conduct, in general, had attracted widespread media criticism and led senior management to conclude she required improvement action. In such circumstances, the Respondent asserted the female officer would be treated the same as the Claimants. With this in mind, the Respondent continued to maintain that its actions didn’t constitute workplace sex discrimination.

Tribunal Provides Sex Discrimination Award

The tribunal disagreed, however, ruling that ACC Ritchie’s decision was “inextricably” and “impermissibly” linked to the Claimants’ sex. It stated that the decision was a “knee-jerk reaction” to adverse media coverage of male officers, and was influenced by the fact that the Claimants worked in a unit where a female officer had successfully brought a sex discrimination claim.

What is an Example of Sex Discrimination?

Under the Equality Act 2010, sex discrimination in the workplace occurs when an individual is treated unfavourably because of their sex. It can take the form of direct or indirect discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

In the workplace, such mistreatment could occur when:

A woman is overlooked for promotion because her employer assumes she won’t travel for work due to childcare responsibilities
A man’s request to work part-time is rejected without good reason, even though many of his female colleagues work part-time
An employee who raises a complaint of sex discrimination is excluded from team activities or overlooked for opportunities in retaliation

In reality, though, such treatment can arise in a multitude of ways. It’s therefore essential to understand one’s employment rights to ensure they aren’t breached. Should an individual believe they’ve been mistreated and bring a claim, they could receive a sex discrimination award if they’re successful.

How can you Prove Sex Discrimination?

Whether an employee wants to claim or discuss an incident of sex discrimination with their manager, having evidence is essential. Not only will it improve the chances of a successful ruling, but it’s also generally required to ensure the matter is taken seriously.

Steps to Take if You’ve Faced Sex Discrimination at Work

When sex discrimination in the workplace has occurred, those affected have several avenues they can take to seek justice. First, they can look internally, either by speaking informally with a manager or raising a formal grievance. The right decision will generally depend on the severity of the circumstances. However, regardless of the route taken, beginning here can help avoid the stresses and costs of legal action.

Should the matter remain unresolved after speaking internally, the next step is to consider Acas early conciliation. Not only is it usually required to use this service before bringing a claim, but it also offers free and independent advice that could again resolve one’s issue before court action is needed.

If all else fails, bringing an employment tribunal claim is the final step. Strict eligibility criteria and time limits apply, but if successful, an individual could receive a sex discrimination award.

If you’ve faced sex discrimination and want expert legal help, Redmans Solicitors are here to help. Following a brief consultation, we can answer your questions, discuss your options and assess your eligibility to make a claim.