Cedric Stewart v ICTS (UK) Ltd

On 22 March 2007, Mr Stewart issued proceedings in the Bristol County court against ICTS (UK) Ltd, an airport security firm. He alleged that he had been discriminated against on racial grounds by staff employed by ICTS (UK) Ltd when he queued with his companion to go through passport control at Bristol Airport on 22nd September 2006 in order to travel to Newark New Jersey. He described in the claim how he and his companion had been singled out from the passport control queue and subjected to more detailed questioning beyond the routine security questions and had his hand luggage bag emptied out and searched and was required to remove his shoes .

Mr Stewart had felt humiliated in front of his fellow passengers. As a former airport passenger agent he was aware of the correct procedures and these in his view had not been followed. He concluded that he and his friend had been treated less favourably on racial grounds than other passengers because of their colour and their national and ethnic origin.

In their defence, ICTS (UK) Ltd stated that they had carried out a full internal investigation and denied that there was discrimination. They also stated that they were following procedures laid down by Transportation Security Administration a US Government Agency.

ICTS (UK) Ltd were required by the court to provide copies of the internal investigation and the trial of the claim was fixed for 9th November 2007. ICTS(UK) Ltd argued that to properly present its case it had to rely on sensitive security information and that it was going to rely on section 41 of the Race Relations Act . So that trial did not take place on 9th November.

A new trial date was arranged for January 25th but hearing was adjourned to allow ICTS (UK) Ltd to put its detailed arguments in writing about why it could not produce in open court evidence upon which it was seeking to rely.

The Defendant argued that they would rely on s42 of the Race Relations Act 1976 if the case against them was proven at trial. This is a provision of the RRA that states that an act done for the purpose of safeguarding national security shall not be rendered unlawful if the doing of the act was justified by that purpose..i.e. national security.  ICTS was saying that the security procedures required by the statutory legislation relating to Aviation Security required the company to act as it did.

A pre trial review was fixed before His Honour Judge Lambert on 23rd July 2008 for an hour in open court at the County Court’s Guildhall in Bristol. The purpose of this hearing was primarily to consider the applications made by ICTS for public interest immunity in relation to documentation – the company was arguing that the security protocols upon which their searches were based were protected by public interest immunity. It was also to consider their application to specifically include reference to ss41 and 42 of the RRA in their defence.

At this hearing Paul Hunter represented ICTS (UK) Ltd and Mr Stewart had the pro bono services of Anne Karithi, a pupil barrister of Garden Court Chambers in London and attendance by the Law Centre to assist.The judge pointed out that the Defendant, ICTS (UK) Ltd was a private corporation. It had not provided any statement from a government minister or an agent of state to confirm that there were security issues. He noted that they had not amended the Defence as the court had asked them to fully explain their defence on grounds of national security.

He said that ICTS (UK) Ltd was using a wholly disproportionate amount of court time with the issues they were raising. The judge invited the parties to discuss whether the case could be settled without further need for hearing.

After negotiation at court, the parties reached agreement .That agreement was encapsulated in a consent order which was approved by His Honour Judge Lambert. The order required ICTS (UK) Ltd to pay £4120 to Mr Stewart by 6th August in settlement of his claim for compensation for racial discrimination. There was no order for costs. The Defendant company through its legal officer Mr Paul Hunter gave an agreed undertaking (a promise to the court) to destroy all the materials relating to the incident on 22nd September 2006 and to confirm by letter that this had been done.

The Law Centre is pleased that Mr Stewart by his own determination and persistence achieved a satisfactory financial settlement after a number of lengthy pre-trial hearings. Claimants in discrimination cases often face an uphill task to enforce their rights.