A senior police watchdog is suing Home Secretary Priti Patel over claims he is paid less than a black female colleague because he is a white man.

Matt Parr, one of five HM Inspectors of Constabulary who oversee the UK's police forces, says his £140,000-a-year pay packet is too low compared to his fellow inspector, Wendy Williams, who earns £185,000.

Ms Patel, however, insists the lower salary is due to a Home Office drive to reduce salaries for senior staff.

HM Inspector of Constabulary Matt Parr (left) is suing on race and gender grounds as he is unhappy with his £140,000-a-year salary. He joined the inspectorate in 2016, a year after Wendy Williams (right) joined on a £185,000-a-year pay packet

Lawyers for Priti Patel had tried to have the hearing held in private, claiming details of pay negotiations were private,

But in a victory for press freedom, Mr Justice Griffiths ordered that the entire case be heard in public and the final judgment published in full so all can understand the arguments in the case.

Setting out Mr Parr’s claim, the judge said: 'Mr Parr is one of five people currently appointed to the office of one of Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary (HMI).

'In 2018, he began proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, claiming equal pay and, further or alternatively, alleging race and sex discrimination.

Lawyers for Priti Patel, pictured outside Downing Street, had tried to have the hearing held in private. However Mr Justice Griffiths ordered it be held in public

'His named comparator is the HMI appointed before him, who is a woman of BME (black or ethnic minority) heritage.

'The Home Secretary admits that he does ‘like work’ within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and that he is paid less, but contends that the reason for the discrepancy in salaries, which are apparently individually negotiated for each HMI, is a pay policy which aims to reduce senior salaries.'

According to the Home Office, Mr Parr, a former Royal Navy rear admiral, was appointed in 2016 to oversee, among others, the National Crime Agency and London’s Met Police, and is currently on a salary of £140,000.

The previously appointed inspector was former chief crown prosecutor, Wendy Williams, in 2015, who is currently earning £185,000-a-year, according to the official government website.

The case first went before a tribunal last June, when an order was made that evidence of pay negotiations with Ms Williams be heard in secret and left out of the final judgment.

But when the full trial of Mr Parr’s pay claim began in January, the order was overturned after the tribunal said the public would never be able to understand the case without hearing the details of the negotiations.

The decision prompted Ms Patel’s appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where her lawyers argued that the decision to overturn the secrecy order was wrong because the tribunal did not have a general power to review the earlier decision.

It had also got its decision wrong on 'the merits' in deciding that open justice prevailed in the face of human rights arguments on behalf of Ms Patel.

Ms Williams herself had written to the tribunal, objecting to disclosure of her pay negotiations, which she said were 'strictly private and confidential,' said the judge.

Mr Parr in his Royal Navy rear admiral uniform. He joined HM Inspector of Constabulary in 2016 and oversees the inspection of Met Police and the National Crime Agency, among other organisations

She said she was 'extremely concerned' that information about negotiations surrounding her appointment were to be used without her consent.

And she referred to the potential impact it could have on her role and credibility with the organisations which she oversees and inspects if they were to become aware of her salary negotiations.

Dismissing Ms Patel’s appeal, Mr Justice Griffiths said: 'The confidentiality alleged in this case was not a matter of any state secret, or sensitive policing, or public interest immunity, or private discussions of public policy, or anything of that sort.

'The salaries of the respondent (Mr Parr), and of the comparator (Ms Williams), and of all the HMIs, were also in the public domain, so no question of confidentiality arose there.

'It was not the salaries, but only the pay negotiations with the comparator, which were said to be confidential and to require protection.

'Since the final salary was public, it was not obvious why the negotiation of the salary, although confidential, was confidential in a way that required protection to the extent that "the public will be simply unable to understand the central argument", in the words of the second tribunal.'

The judge said the second tribunal, which overturned the secrecy order, had more information in front of it than the first, having had 1,000 pages of documents submitted.

It had also heard argument from a barrister, who cited cases involving the open justice rule, whereas Mr Parr had been in person at the first hearing.

The case will return to the employment tribunal for Mr Parr’s pay claim to be heard in full.