Campbell v Sheffield Teaching North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EAT 45 (“Campbell”). The SDGCK "Wrongly Decided" files. The case is wrongly decided since the discussion honestly must have transpired during work and not during a post employment discussion since it was a discussion while the individual was still in a contract or agreement for employment with union dues in the expectation to be taken and deducted. Mr. Hammond is to be charged criminally since it took place in a hospital environment but most importantly there is evidence to substantiate a Crown brief. The real question is whether fucking monkey is racial vs. cheeky monkey and maybe in England black and white people use the terms but without racial import. The Crown will decide whether the intent was racial. The question is whether Mr. Campbell could call a white soul a cheeky monkey or F--cking monkey and get away with it in cultural English context and it seems this is the question for the Courts; whether "F--cking monkey" is of equal non racial import is "cheeky monkey." It could be of equal non racial import in UK culture but the victim of the crime must decide whether he apprehended unlawful force being used against him or any threat to his person. If he did, then he was assaulted. This is the actus reus. The Court would then have to accept or not accept that Mr. Hammond, in his anger, intended this threat to confirm or deny the mens rea.

• Campbell v Sheffield Teaching North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025]  EAT 45 (“Campbell”).  The SDGCK "Wrongly Decided" files.   The case is wrongly decided since the discussion honestly must have transpired during work and not during a post employment discussion since it was a discussion while the individual was still in a contract or agreement for employment with union dues in the expectation to be taken and deducted. Mr. Hammond is to be charged criminally since it took place in a hospital environment but most importantly there is evidence to substantiate a Crown brief. The real question is whether fucking monkey is racial vs. cheeky monkey and maybe in England black and white people use the terms but without racial import. The Crown will decide whether the intent was racial.    The question is whether Mr. Campbell could call a white soul  a cheeky monkey or F--cking monkey and get away with it in cultural English context and it seems this is the question for the Courts; whether "F--cking monkey" is  of equal non racial import is "cheeky monkey."   It could be of equal non racial import in UK culture but the victim of the crime must decide whether he apprehended unlawful force being used against him or any threat to his person. If he did, then he was assaulted. This is the actus reus. The Court would then have to accept  or not accept that Mr. Hammond, in his anger, intended this threat to confirm or deny the mens rea.   
• 
  
•  (b) Campbell v Sheffield Teaching North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EAT 45 (“Campbell”) 45. Mr Campbell was employed by Sheffield Teaching North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) and worked as Branch Secretary of a recognised union. The second respondent, Mr Hammond, was also an employee of the Trust, had been a member of the union but had decided he wanted to leave. 
• During a discussion between Mr Campbell and Mr Hammond regarding the deduction of union subscriptions from his wages, Mr Hammond became angry and referred to Mr Campbell as a “fucking monkey”. 46. Mr Campbell brought a racial harassment claim against both the Trust and Mr Hammond: 46.1. The ET dismissed the claim. 
• It held that although the remark had been made it had not been made “in course of” Mr Hammond’s employment (pursuant to s.109(1) EqA 2010), primarily on the basis that union membership was a matter of personal choice and that the comment was made in relation to a personal dispute Mr Hammond had with the union about deduction of subscriptions.50 In any event, the reasonable steps under s.109(4) EqA 2010 would have applied.51 46.2. 
• The EAT refused the appeal, finding that the ET had considered the whole context and balanced the factors for and against the argument that the comment was made “in the course” of Mr Hammond’s employment. 
• The weight attached to each of those factors was pre-eminently a matter for the ET as an industrial jury.52 48 Marston, paragraphs 87 to 88. 49 Marston, paragraphs 92 to 94. 50 Campbell, paragraphs 9 to 10. 51 Campbell, paragraph 11. 52 Campbell, paragraph 26. 18 Further, they had correctly considered and applied the terms of s.109(4) EqA 2010 defence.53 (c) Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82