He told his line manager that the way he’d been treated had made him feel like a ‘walking disease’
22:13, 16 Feb 2026Updated 16:17, 17 Feb 2026
He told his line manager that the way he’d been treated had made him feel like a ‘walking disease'(Image: WalesOnline/ Rob Browne)
A police officer working for a force in Wales will receive more than £40,000 in compensation after he was discriminated against after revealing his HIV diagnosis.
The unnamed officer from Gwent Police was discriminated against, harassed and treated unfavourably by a nurse from the force’s occupational health (OH) department, a tribunal has found.
The treatment towards the officer made him “feel like a walking disease” as he was placed on restricted duties and asked intimate questions regarding his sex life by a member of the OH department named Susan Barlow, court documents seen by WalesOnline show.
In November 2024 the officer was informed that he had been diagnosed with HIV and that same day informed a nurse from OH about his diagnosis. He was then advised by the nurse to “take time off to process his diagnosis” as “he was so distressed”.
The next day Ms Barlow told the officer that he would be placed on restricted duties until the force knew his viral load and CD4 count. However, an NHS specialist had advised that this was not necessary, leaving him confused and angry, the employment tribunal heard.
On November 19, two weeks after his initial diagnosis, he was told by a specialist that his “HIV levels would be non-detectable and non-transmittible within a few months, and that the NHS were not worried about his results”.
The same day the officer attended an appointment with Ms Barlow in which she asked him questions regarding his sexual health including whether he had a partner, if they were aware of his diagnosis, and if he was using protection during intercourse.
The tribunal heard the officer “could not understand why he was being asked questions by an occupational health nurse about his sexual relationships when this had no bearing on his role as a police officer, particularly when that person knew that he was being treated by a specialist clinic”.
Every interaction with Ms Barlow had left the officer feeling “ashamed, disgusted and angry” with the way he was being treated, the tribunal heard.
Employment Judge H J Randall found that the line of questioning “caused upset, humiliation and anger”, and that intimate questions were being unnecessarily asked, finding that the questions asked “perpetuated stigma surrounding transmission of HIV”.
Judge Randall also found Ms Barlow’s answers “troubling” when asked whether it was necessary for her to give advice on sexual health.
In response to the question she said: “It was necessary. It was my duty of care to protect him and to protect his colleagues and members of the public from an officer whose viral load remains detectable.”
The judge said the “use of such language reduces a person affected by HIV to the virus”. “We find this indicative of the stigma attached to HIV,” said Judge Randall.
It was concluded that it was not Ms Barlow’s purpose to “violate” the officer’s dignity or to “create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him”.
On December 11, 2024, Ms Barlow spoke with Dr Williams, a force medical advisor, regarding the officer returning to work and wanting to place him on restricted duties. Dr Williams’ evidence was that Ms Barlow wanted to place the officer on restricted duties until his viral load was at an untransmittible level.
Dr Williams said he agreed with her course of action but suggested she take advice from Professor Diana Kloss, an expert in employment and occupational health law. Conversing with Professor Kloss, Ms Barlow said: “This individual is a frontline officer who will be dealing with serious injuries in the course of his work.
“Both myself and our OHP feel we need to restrict his duties until we have further information which will enable [us] to know if he is infectious or the virus is undetectable. What is the legal stance on us taking action until we know he is safe please?” To which the professor replied: “I imagine the risks of transmission arising from police activities are vanishingly small.”
Ms Barlow informed the officer’s line manager that she had reached a decision to restrict his duties. The following morning the officer sent a WhatsApp message to his line manager saying: “Hardly slept last night. I can’t believe they have done this to me!!
“Every time I’m moving forward with it they just pull the carpet from underneath me. They aren’t thinking about me, helping and supporting… At what point am I going to allow someone to drink my blood from the vein or start rubbing an open wound into someone else’s open wound?
“Or have unprotected sex with a member of the public. It’s barbaric what they’ve done. They’ve isolated me and just making me feel like a walking disease.”
In his witness statement he also said: “It felt as though they did not know what to do in situations where an officer had been diagnosed with HIV, so panicked and made the decision to restrict me. It felt like this was feeding into the stigma that surrounds HIV.” The officer was unable to work due to his restriction.
Attending another appointment with Stewart Attridge, a clinical nurse specialist focused HIV, the officer was told that most recent blood results revealed his viral load was at an untransmittible level and Mr Attridge wrote a letter to OH confirming this and raising concern as to the officer’s treatment by the department and the stigmatizing nature of its response. He attached advice on tackling HIV stigma.
Leaving his appointment at the clinic, the officer met with Ms Barlow and informed her his viral levels were undetectable and untransmittible. Ms Barlow thereafter agreed to lift the restrictions and he returned to full duties.
Dr Williams accepted that he had not considered the exposure prone procedures (EPP) guidance in advising Ms Barlow, and that if he had read this he may have advised differently. In the course of his evidence, on being asked of the risk posed by the officer’s role, Dr Williams responded: “I don’t know how you calculate risk to be honest.”
Judge Randall said that they considered this to be “astonishing in respect of a force medical advisor providing advice to an occupational health department”.
The judge found that “restricting the officer from duties had a number of effects: (a) It perpetuated the officer’s fears of misconception and stigma surrounding the transmission of HIV; (b) It induced frustration that the risks of transmission were not being properly assessed; (c) It induced worry and anxiety that the restriction would lead to colleagues asking questions as to the reason for his restriction; (d) It actualised that fear. It perpetuated stigma and misconception surrounding HIV.”
Within the judge’s verdict it was considered that “the respondent has failed to apologise to the claimant”.
Judge Randall continued: “The treatment involved a complete exclusion of the officer from carrying out his role because of his HIV-positive status and unfounded fears surrounding transmission of the virus.
“It was treatment which isolated and separated him from colleagues, effectively shunning him. It made him feel, in his own words, like ‘a walking disease’.
“It perpetuated misconception as to the transmissibility of the virus. It stigmatised him, and perpetuated the stigma surrounding HIV.”
A member of staff within Gwent Police also disclosed the officer’s diagnosis to another member of staff in order for them to testify at the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the officer had been discriminated against, harassed and treated unfavourably. Therefore Gwent Police was ordered to pay him compensation for injury to feelings of £40,200 as well as interest of £2,927.08.
Further training regarding HIV diagnosis will also be carried out by organisation as a result of the action taken by the officer. All claims against Ms Barlow were dismissed upon withdrawal by the officer.
Deputy chief constable Nicky Brain of Gwent Police said: “The health and wellbeing of our staff is of great importance to us. In this case we recognise that we got this wrong and acknowledge the significant impact that this has had on the officer.
“Our aim is to be a more inclusive police service and we recognise there is more for us to do to ensure that no staff or officer within our organisation faces the kind of stigma that this officer has.
“We are in the process of implementing several learning measures identified as part of this judgement.
“These actions include HIV training for all officers and staff, additional training for our occupational health practitioners, and collaboration with charities focused on supporting people living with HIV and combating related stigma to help us build stronger policies and procedures.”
Ensure our latest news and sport headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings