�山����

The Tribunal did not find any evidence of sexual exploitation and abuse as defined by the SGB. The Tribunal considered the definition of pornography and on viewing the images concluded that they were obscene, hardcore pornography. In view of the Applicant’s admissions and the quantity of materials on his official computer, the misconduct charge in that respect was well founded. The Applicant’s submission that the evidence was fruit of the poison tree and therefore inadmissible was rejected on the basis that the illegally obtained evidence (a CD) merely triggered the investigation but did not found the charge which the Tribunal found proven—that of misuse of ICT resources. Relying on Jeffrey v. Black the Tribunal did not consider that the illegally obtained ‘trigger’ rendered the subsequent charges/proceedings defective. The Tribunal considered whether or not the sanction was proportionate, in light of the Secretary-General’s published practice in disciplinary cases. The Tribunal considered that summary dismissal was far more severe than the sanction imposed on other staff members for having pornography on their official computers. The severe sanction was wrongly imposed in all likelihood because of the sexual exploitation element in the case. That not having been proven before the Tribunal, the sanction could only be described as disproportionate.