An employment tribunal judge has delivered a scathing verdict in the case of a woman dismissed from her job at an ambulance trust following a brutal attack on her manager by her wife. The judge ruled the dismissal was unfair and summed up the core issue with a blunt, two-word question: "So what?"
The Attack and Arrest
The case centres on Paula Smith, a former patient transport worker for the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS). In November 2023, her then-wife, Stacey Smith, launched what was described as an "unprovoked and frenzied hammer attack" on their operations manager, Michala Morton, following a dispute over work rotas.
Stacey Smith was later found guilty of attempted murder and in October 2024 was sentenced to 25 years in prison. In the aftermath, Paula Smith was arrested on suspicion of harassment and threats to kill Ms Morton. However, in April 2024, Greater Manchester Police confirmed they would take no further action against her and lifted her bail conditions.
The Unfair Dismissal
Despite being cleared by police, Paula Smith was dismissed from her role at NWAS just three weeks later. A letter dated 25 April 2024 informed her that her dismissal was due to her "known arrest and association with someone who has been charged with attempted murder of your operations manager".
The tribunal heard that Paula Smith, who has since separated from Stacey, had no prior knowledge of the attack and only learned of it after her wife's arrest. Employment Judge Paul Holmes found that the trust had unfairly dismissed the then 56-year-old.
The Judge's Blunt Assessment
In his judgement, Judge Holmes stated that Paula Smith's "only involvement was to be married to Stacey Smith". He criticised the trust's Director of Operations, Ian Stringer, suggesting that "the very fact" of her arrest "appears to have sealed her fate in his eyes".
The judge questioned the logic that her association with the crime posed a risk, noting that the arrest and bail conditions received no publicity. He concluded that patients and the public were "highly unlikely" to make the connection or feel at risk from Paula Smith.
Encapsulating this reasoning, Judge Holmes wrote: "Put bluntly - 'So what?', the Tribunal is inclined, with respect, to ask."
Compensation and Outcome
As a result of the ruling, Paula Smith is now in line for a compensation payout. The tribunal has calculated her award for unfair dismissal at approximately £14,000.
The case highlights the legal boundaries for employers when considering an employee's association with criminal activity, emphasising that dismissal must be based on tangible risk and fair process, not merely guilt by association.
