Dismissal of employee for distributing pornography did not breach their right to freedom of expression

In Henderson v London Borough of Hackney (EAT/0072/09), Miss Henderson was employed as a mentor for vulnerable school girls (e.g. girls with special needs) at a secondary school. She was dismissed for using the school’s computer to receive and forward pornographic emails to a school colleague. The emails were not seen by the school girls but it was possible that they could have done so.

Miss Henderson claimed that her dismissal was a breach of her right to freedom of expression under Art.10(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

The EAT disagreed. Her right to freedom of expression was subject to Art. 10(2) of the HRA 1998 which protected the rights of others (e.g. the school girls). The protection of the school girls from being exposed to pornography was a legitimate aim - and the tribunal had found - that Miss Henderson’s dismissal was a proportionate measure to achieve the aim. In addition to this, Miss Henderson did not appreciate the harm that could have been caused by the pornographic emails.

Also see Dismissal of diabetic employee for viewing pornographic images was unfair