Select a region
Claims that a doorman at The Mary Rose denied a man entry due to his sexuality and subjected him to “homophobic slurs” have been dismissed by a tribunal.
Michael Wynne alleged he was turned away from the St Helier bar due to his sexual orientation when he was on a night out with his friends and partner earlier this year.
Mr Wynne also claimed the doorman, Nuno Abreu, acted aggressively and repeatedly used the term "queen" in a derogatory way.
Pictured: The claimant's partner posted the above message on Facebook just after midnight on 15 April 2024.
The claimant's partner took to social media in the moments after the incident on 14 April to accuse the bar of homophobia.
Alex Fergusson-Cooper wrote: "How unfortunate when bars think they're above the Jersey populace that they can refuse entry based on: 'You're too much of a queen.'
"Be ashamed. Dispute it, I dare you. I have the homophobic slurs on video."
Mr Wynne, who is the Director of Music at St Luke's Church, pursued a harassment claim rather than direct discrimination because it focuses on "unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic" – such as sexual orientation – that "violates a person's dignity or creates a hostile, degrading, or offensive environment".
But following a hearing on 25 November, the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal ruled that the claim of harassment was unsubstantiated and that Mr Wynne's recollection of events was "poor" and "unreliable".
The tribunal was particularly critical of the couple's failure to "preserve" the video evidence of the alleged "homophobic slurs" that they claimed to possess.
Mr Fergusson-Cooper said that the footage was lost when he changed phones.
The judgment read: "We are concerned that key evidence recorded on Mr Fergusson-Cooper's phone was not retained despite proceedings having commenced.
"We consider it likely that no steps were taken to preserve the footage because it did not support Mr Wynne's case."
Pictured: Michael Wynne, Director of Music at St Luke's Church. (Rob Currie)
The tribunal added that the claim in the Facebook post about having video evidence of the homophobic slurs "may have been incorrect" – which raised doubts about the accuracy of the post as a whole.
Mr Wynne was also "adamant" he was wearing a "pink shirt and dark check blazer", the tribunal found that a photo taken on the night shows he was wearing a "white shirt and red gilet" which raised further concerns about the claimant's reliability.
The tribunal concluded that the testimonies from Raven Security employees, including the defendant, his colleague, and the director, were more credible than those of Mr Wynne and his partner.
In his account, Mr Abreu said that Mr Wynne was turned away because he appeared intoxicated, was swaying, and spoke with affected speech.
After entry was refused, the doorman reported that Mr Wynne responded by saying: "This is ridiculous; do you know who I am?"
The other security guard who was present later in the interaction, Ryan Dransfield, supported Mr Abreu's account – and said he did not hear his colleague use the word "queen".
Mr Dransfield added that one of the comments he heard from Mr Wynne was "do you know who I am?" which he repeated multiple times.
The judgment concluded: "We found both Mr Abreu and Mr Dransfield to be honest witnesses and we prefer their evidence to that of Mr Wynne and Mr Fergusson-Cooper on the key issue of the words used by Mr Abreu when Mr Wynne was denied entry."
The judgment noted that CCTV footage of the incident at The Mary Rose was no longer available due to standard deletion practices after 30 days.
However, Jose Gomes, the director of Raven Security, testified that he had reviewed the footage before it was erased.
He said the footage showed Mr Wynne swaying with his hands in his pockets and showed no signs of aggression from Mr Abreu.
The judgment read: "We consider it highly unlikely that had Mr Wynne been subjected to the type of verbal abuse that he describes, he would have left his hands in his pockets."
The tribunal found Mr Gomes' evidence to be credible and noted his comments that there had been no previous incidents involving Mr Abreu during his seven years of employment, and that he had completed discrimination training 16 months before the incident.
The tribunal ultimately found that Mr Wynne failed to prove on the "balance of probabilities" that homophobic language was used.
The judgement concluded: "We consider that while Mr Wynne may have thought he heard Mr Abreu repeatedly use the word 'queen,' his recollection and that of Mr Fergusson-Cooper are unreliable due to their level of intoxication."
Pictured: The claimant's partner described the ruling as "a dangerous precedent".
"Having found on the balance of probability that Mr Abreu did not use the word 'queen,' Mr Wynne cannot satisfy the panel that an act of harassment happened.
"The claim of unlawful discrimination is therefore dismissed."
Following the ruling, Mr Wynne and Mr Fergusson-Cooper took again to social media to express their dissatisfaction with the ruling.
They wrote: "We took Raven Security to court and the court has all but advocated for homophobic attacks to be ok in Jersey."
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.