Gay Veterans Launch High Court Challenge Against MoD Over Compensation Scheme
Two British veterans, who were effectively forced to resign from the military due to their sexuality under a historic ban, have initiated legal proceedings against the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Steven Stewart, aged 55, and Mark Shephard, aged 49, are contesting the rules of the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme, which they argue is structurally unfair and discriminates against those compelled to leave service.
Background of the Ban and Compensation Scheme
Until the year 2000, gay men and lesbian women were prohibited from serving in the British armed forces. Historical estimates suggest that approximately 200 to 250 personnel were dismissed annually because of their sexuality, though precise figures remain unknown due to inadequate record-keeping. In 2024, Labour ministers approved the establishment of a £75 million compensation scheme for victims of this policy, which had severe consequences including imprisonment, loss of medals, and forfeiture of pension rights.
This scheme was one of numerous recommendations stemming from Lord Etherton's independent review in 2023. It provides two types of payments: a flat-rate sum of £50,000 for individuals who were formally dismissed or administratively discharged under the ban, and impact payments of up to £20,000 for those affected by it.
Legal Arguments and Claims of Unfairness
Represented by the law firm Irwin Mitchell, Stewart and Shephard have filed a legal claim, with no hearing date yet set. Their barrister, Kate Gallafent KC, outlined in court documents that the scheme's eligibility criteria are flawed. Veterans who were constructively dismissed—meaning they felt compelled to resign under duress—are ineligible for the larger £50,000 payment because they were not officially dismissed or discharged.
Gallafent emphasized that this results in a significant financial disparity, with her clients and others in similar situations receiving tens of thousands of pounds less than those who were administratively discharged. Stewart and Shephard received impact payments of £7,000 and £5,000, respectively, after assessments by an independent panel, but their applications for the larger payment were denied, and subsequent appeals were dismissed.
Personal Accounts of Harm and Resignation
Steven Stewart served as a corporal in the Royal Military Police from 1988 to 1995. He described being confused about his sexuality during his service and recounted being arrested, interviewed under caution, and removed from his unit. Faced with the threat of a court martial and potential imprisonment, he resigned. Leaving under those circumstances was devastating. My military career ended overnight. The impact of that decision has stayed with me ever since, Stewart told the court.
Mark Shephard served in the Royal Air Force from 1995 to 2001, enduring persistent and severe bullying. In 1999, his commanding officer directly asked if he was gay, and Shephard confirmed it, unaware of the ban at the time. To avoid summary dismissal, he later applied for voluntary release, a decision that has caused enduring psychological and relational harm.
MoD Response and Regret
An MoD spokesperson expressed deep regret for the treatment of LGBT personnel between 1967 and 2000, describing it as wholly unacceptable and not reflective of modern defence practices. The spokesperson acknowledged the hurt experienced by veterans who felt compelled to resign but stated that the dismissed and discharged payment was specifically designed to recognise those who were dishonourably removed from service.
This legal action highlights ongoing tensions over how historical injustices are addressed, with the veterans seeking fair compensation for the discrimination they faced. The case underscores broader issues of equality and recognition within the armed forces community.
