Mark Hehir v Metroline – Public Outcry over the dismissal of a hero?

Background

Just in case you missed it, the facts are that Mr Hehir was fired from his job as a bus driver following an incident on a bus in summer of 2024.  A thief targeted a female passenger on the 206 bus to Maida Vale, snatching her necklace and running off the bus. Mr Hehir (who has subsequently been hailed as a hero by many), stopped the bus, got out and ran after the thief. He caught the thief, took the necklace from him and returned it to the female passenger. Precisely what happened next is disputed, but what is clear is that the thief was subsequently knocked unconscious by Mr Hehir. The police arrived at the scene and although both Mr Hehir and the thief were initially arrested, Mr Hehir was released without charge, with the police accepting he acted in self-defence. 

But for the employer, that was not the end of the matter. The employer took disciplinary action against Mr Hehir. The Company alleged that he had brought the Company into disrepute by assaulting a passenger, that he had committed misconduct by assaulting a passenger and that he had breached company rules by leaving the bus unattended. Following an investigation and a disciplinary hearing, management held that Mr Hehir had not acted in self- defence, contrary to the police conclusion. There was also evidence that Mr Hehir had received training in how to respond to an incident such as this. The employer say that he ought to have stayed in his cab and called in a code red (seeking the help of the emergency services). 

Members of Parliament, members of the public, journalists and Instagrammers alike, have hailed Mr Hehir a hero and have expressed outrage at the Watford Employment Tribunal’s decision [reference and date] that Metroline were entitled to dismiss Mr Hehir. Demands have been made for his reinstatement (which Mr Hehir doesn’t actually want; he would prefer compensation) to a Parliamentary inquiry. A GoFundMe page has received contributions exceeding its target and a petition started by Dr Kieran Mullan, MP for Bexhill and Battle and the shadow Justice Minister, has passed the 100,000-signature threshold to be considered for a debate in Parliament. 

Dr Mullan introduced Mr Hehir to the Tory party leader when he invited him to visit Parliament, with Kemi Badenoch pledging to introduce a new ‘Good Samaritan’ law to protect employees who use reasonable force to protect customers: “Nobody should ever lose their job for doing the right thing. We obviously don’t want to strangle business with more regulations. But heroes like Mark deserve our full support… so we will be working out solutions to support both employers and employees on the front lines.”

The victim of the robbery, Katalin Kaszas, who was also invited by Dr Mullan to visit Westminster, said Mr Hehir didn’t deserve to be sacked: “I think it was unjust. I don’t think he deserved that. If he doesn’t do what he did, anything could happen to me.”

For the government, David Lammy, the Justice Secretary, told the House of Commons that Mr Hehir “is of course a hero and deserves our support”, adding: “I’m following this case very closely.”

Why this was not an unfair dismissal

The law on unfair dismissal has been clear since the early 1980s. An Employment Tribunal is not entitled to find that a dismissal is unfair because it believes the decision was too harsh or because other people would have issued a different decision. It is also not entitled to substitute its own views on how the employer should have decided the case, nor is it entitled to make moral judgements. Instead, the Tribunal must decide three key things:

1. Did the employer have a genuine belief that the employee was guilty of misconduct when it dismissed him?
2. If so, were there reasonable grounds for that belief?
3. Whether the employer carried out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable in all the circumstances before dismissing the employee

Once the Employment Tribunal has answers to these three questions, it must then consider whether the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer in light of the misconduct. 

In plain English, what this means is that Employment Tribunals require managers who dismiss employees for misconduct to be able to explain that they had a genuine and honest belief in the employee’s misconduct and to satisfy the Tribunal that the belief was supported by a thorough investigation. 

In this case, the manager who fired Mr Hehir was able to explain (and her evidence was accepted by the Tribunal) why she had formed the view that Mr Hehir did not act in self defence when he punched the thief and rendered him unconscious. She was also able to explain that Mr Hehir had been trained to remain in his cab in similar situations and to report the incident as a code red. Mr Hehir had failed to follow the procedure he had been trained in.

Many people may find it surprising that Mr Hehir’s manager reached a conclusion which was different to the decision reached by the police, but the manager was able to explain to the satisfaction of the Tribunal judge why her decision differed.

Almost every employment lawyer reading the Tribunal’s decision will, in my opinion, agree that the Tribunal judge has applied the correct legal test and that this case will be very difficult to appeal. Having established that the employer was entitled to form the view that Mr Hehir had committed misconduct, Mr Hehir would have needed to persuade the Tribunal that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in the circumstances. The bar, insofar as this argument is concerned, is high.

Conclusion

This case may have prompted public outcry, and the employer may have been found guilty in the court of public opinion, but the judgement is most unlikely to be overturned. Cases can only be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal if the original judge makes an error of law, and none is apparent in this case. 

The one aspect of the case which is patently unfair, is that Mr Hehir was dismissed in June 2024 but had to wait until December 2025 for justice, in the form of the Tribunal’s judgment. The UK Courts and Tribunals are vastly under resourced, and some cases are taking nearly two years to reach a hearing. 

That is something which certainly merits Parliamentary attention!

How our Employment team can help you

Whether you're an employee or employer, our specialist employment solicitors have the know-how to handle any dispute or other legal problem you encounter. Covering Bromley, London, Kent, West Wickham and Sevenoaks, our employment solicitors do more than provide authoritative advice - they also ensure legal advice is delivered in way that is simple for clients to understand.

If you have any questions about unfair dismissal, please contact Jennifer Nicol on 020 8290 0440.