A former Drugs worker, found to have been racially discriminated against by the Home Office, says he will risk bankruptcy to fight on to prove a quashed count of victimisation.

Saeed Butt, was awarded £34,755 a year ago by an employment tribunal which decided he had been discriminated against on three counts, one of them racial.

But the compensation figure dropped to £5,291 when a count of victimisation was later overturned on appeal.

Mr Butt, formerly a senior development officer with the Government-run Drugs Prevention Initiative (DPI), said he is seeking permission to challenge the latest decision in the Court of Appeal.

If he is given the go-ahead but loses the case, he could be made to pay the Home Office's legal fees, which may run into thousands of pounds.

Mr Butt, 40, of White Abbey Road, Bradford, said: "I strongly believe in justice and I have a case which I am determined will be heard.

"I must pursue it whatever it entails. It could bankrupt me but I can't go into something like this thinking about how much money it might cost me."

The father-of-three said he found there was a lack of organisations offering support and advice.

He claims, as he was unable to afford a lawyer, he was forced to represent himself and go up against Home Office barristers paid for from public funds.

Mr Butt, now an employment adviser, has appealed to local amateur legal experts to help him with the case.

He said: "I am good at my job but I don't see how I can compete with a barrister at his job without there being a concern that justice will suffer.

"I have had some support but one thing I have found through this bitter experience is that more groups should be made available to support people with issues like this."

Mr Butt began work at the DPI in 1991. Throughout his time with the group, was the only Asian working in the Bradford office and, he says, the only Pakistani employed by it nationally.

The latest hearing at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London was the third between Mr Butt and the Home Office.

The first did not find in his favour. A second hearing, which rejected three claims of discrimination by Mr Butt, decided the DPI's failure to send him an application pack for the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service, (DPAS), was discrimination through victimisation.

The packs to apply for jobs at DPAS, which was replacing the DPI ,were sent to all employees expect Mr Butt, who was on sick leave at the time.

On appeal Mr Justice Kay overturned that ruling. He also found that by offering Mr Butt a job in Manchester rather than Bradford, the DPI was responsible for racial discrimination and victimisation. He agreed with the tribunal's view that the explanation offered by the Home Office for the decision was inadequate and unsatisfactory.

No one was available from the Home Office to comment on the case.