Mr Storey, a devout Christian, brought an application alleging unlawful discrimination on the grounds of his disability or religious beliefs. His application for a post at GCHQ had been rejected 18 months later. He had experienced psychotic episodes in the past; and there was a risk that he would experience them in the future, which could interfere with his work and pose a potentially serious security risk. The Employment Tribunal (ET) had found the religious claim strongly interlinked to that of direct disability discrimination and had noted Mr Storey's statement that, if required to choose between his loyalty to his country and his loyalty to God, he would choose his loyalty to God whatever the outcome. However, he had not been discriminated against unlawfully because his adverse treatment was not on the grounds of his disability or religious beliefs but because of security concerns and the risks to national security that he posed. The ET did not consider separately the national security exemptions in section 59 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Regulation 24 of the Employment (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. It had concluded that any comparator in materially the same circumstances as Mr Storey would have been treated in precisely the same way and had rejected his claim of direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. Mr Storey appealed.

Simler J began from the conclusion that Mr Storey's Christian belief was not in itself an issue for GCHQ. The ET had found that the claim was interlinked to the claim of direct disability discrimination; given that Mr Storey's psychosis had included a significant religious element, that had been a proper conclusion to draw. However, the Tribunal made clear findings that the concerns were not because of his religious beliefs but were properly separable from them so that the claim failed. The Court was satisfied that the ET's findings were supported by the evidence and that there had been no error of law. Read in context, the ET had found that it had not been Mr Storey's past disability that had given rise to the impugned treatment but security concerns about a number of matters, none of which was the disability itself but one of which related to his mental health. The ET had also drawn a proper distinction in relation to Mr Storey's religious beliefs and the associated security concerns and the Court was satisfied that there was no error of law in the ET's approach to that issue. The appeal was dismissed. [Frank Cranmer]