An award-winning Army social media star who says he was bullied by a quartermaster who repeatedly called him a “c**t” is suing the MoD for £660,000 compensation.
Former sergeant Jonathan Biney was honoured as Military Communicator of the Year in 2020 for his work promoting army life as an Instagram influencer – but took exception to blue language aimed his way by his superior.
The 38-year-old says he was subjected to a campaign of “bullying” by the foul-mouthed quartermaster, who used bad language to “humiliate, degrade and denigrate” him after taking against him.
Mr Biney, who was serving in the Royal Logistic Corps, says his superior swore at him on a daily basis, hurling offensive four-letter insults, including calling him a “miserable c**t.”
The quartermaster had also singled him out by forcing him to repeatedly march into his office, criticising his performance as though he were a new recruit.
Mr Biney eventually left the Army and is now suing for £660,000 at the High Court, claiming he was left with “significant depression” following his treatment at the hands of his superior.
But the MoD is fighting the claim, denying that Mr Biney was subjected to bullying or that he was repeatedly sworn at, other than on one occasion when he was described as “the c**t.”
According to documents filed at the London court, Ghana-born Mr Biney joined the ranks in 2009 and initially served as an Army chef, later carrying out front line duties in Afghanistan before switching to become a logistics supply specialist.
In 2020, he was presented with an award by the Lord Mayor of London from the Company of Communicators – a guild-style association for communications professionals – for using Instagram to promote understanding of the Army and life as a soldier.
On the Army website at the time he was reportedly praised for having “proved himself to be an authentic and outstanding ambassador giving enthralling insight into some of the other task the military has been engaged in around the world”.
He says the bullying happened while on deployment with the British Army Training Unit in Kenya from 2020 to 2022, when he was helping in accounts management for the overseas unit.
“While in that role, [his superior] subjected Mr Biney to an unlawful course of conduct that amounted to harassment,” says his barrister, David White, in claim documents.
“He treated the claimant less favourably than his peers, inter alia, in the way that he spoke to him, the work load he gave him, and, for example, in making the claimant march formally into his office, which he did not require of others and would be highly unusual for a sergeant in the field army.”
The barrister said the alleged mistreatment came after Mr Biney “identified a number of accounting discrepancies in the course of his work which revealed that there was a large amount of equipment that should have been present according to the accounts, but which was in fact missing.”
His superior had turned on Mr Biney due to a difference over accounting and on one occasion the officer confronted him and accused him of “cooking the books” to make him look bad.
Soon afterwards, the quartermaster summoned Mr Biney to his office and “swore repeatedly at him” – before threatening to punch him in the face, he said.
“When he made that threat, he had come close enough to Mr Biney to punch him, and his conduct and demeanour were such that the claimant reasonably apprehended that he would punch him, or otherwise inflict unlawful violence,” he continued.
“Thereafter, he swore at the claimant on a daily basis, repeatedly referring to the claimant as a ‘c**t’, and made further threats to him.”
Further alleged humiliation occurred when the quartermaster approached Mr Biney in his open plan office and told him to “sort your face out”.
When asked what he meant by this, the officer allegedly replied: “you look like a miserable c**t” – a comment which Mr Biney’s barrister labelled “humiliating, degrading, and demeaning for a sergeant in front of colleagues”.
The quartermaster had also forced Mr Biney to march into his office, then laughed and mockingly asked a colleague, “how this c**t ever got through basic training”.
He acted in a similar way on another occasion, repeatedly ordering Mr Biney to march into his office on the basis that he was doing it poorly.
“For the avoidance of doubt, that is not treatment he dealt out to anyone else, nor is it heard of for a sergeant in the field army,” he said.
“It was designed to be dehumanising and degrading to Mr Biney.”
The barrister said Mr Biney had eventually been forced to leave the forces, having developed psychiatric symptoms, which affect his work, domestic and life lives.
“His sleep has been affected, and he has required therapy and psychiatric medication. He has been diagnosed with significant depression, with anxiety and some post-traumatic symptoms, including flashbacks.”
Suing, he claims the MoD was at fault in “causing, permitting or tolerating a culture which encouraged or allowed bullying and harassment in the workplace”.
Denying the claims in its defence to the action, MoD barrister, Dominic Ruck Keene, says: “It is denied that [the quartermaster] repeatedly swore at the claimant in an offensive and/or aggressive manner, as opposed to swearing as a means of emphasis.
“Save that it is admitted that, on one occasion, the claimant was referred to as ‘the c**t’, it is denied that [the quartermaster] swore at the claimant on a daily basis, and/or repeatedly called him a c**t.
“It is denied that his line manager singled out the claimant inappropriately in front of other members of the QM’s Department, or otherwise inappropriately threatened, humiliated, screamed at or intimidated the claimant on the dates alleged or at all.
“It is admitted that his line manager may have told the claimant to ‘sort his face out’ if he was looking glum. It is denied that this would have been in a hostile, intimidating or humiliating manner.”
Occasionally requiring Mr Biney to march in and out of his superior’s office was simply part of normal military protocols, he added, and no form of bullying.
Although it was admitted that there were issues with previous loss of equipment, those were thought to have been due to a recent move of base and were “subsequently resolved in accordance with policy.”
The case recently appeared in court before a judge, Master Richard Armstrong, for a brief hearing dealing with the issue of the legal costs’ budget for the future trial.
It will now be listed for a full trial of Mr Biney’s compensation claim, unless the parties are able to agree a settlement outside of court.
