An RAF veteran has lost what is believed to be one of the oldest employment tribunals ever brought after he tried to sue the Ministry of Defence for forcing him out because he was wrongly believed to be gay.
Cpl Sean Walsh launched the lawsuit over his discharge from the air force almost 50 years ago, describing the treatment he received as degrading and humiliating.
Walsh, 75, claims he was discriminated against when he was ordered to leave in 1975 after 12 years of service. At the time, there was a ban on gay people serving in the armed forces.
However, 48 years on, Walsh has lost his discrimination case after the tribunal ruled it did not have jurisdiction because what happened to Walsh was lawful at the time.
The claim by Walsh is thought to be one of the oldest of its kind in British legal history. It comes as the long-awaited LGBT veterans independent review on the impact of the pre-2000 ban on homosexuality in the armed forces is about to be published.
Walsh, who was a telegraphist in the RAF, said he was falsely accused while posted in south Asia.
He said: “I was interviewed by a sergeant from the RAF’s special investigation branch and was advised that an allegation had been made against me, and that I was now suspected of having homosexual tendencies, which I denied and still continue to do so.
“I was given a dishonourable discharge, annotated on my RAF records as ‘services no longer required’. I was not given any advice, nor did I have any means of appealing against the RAF’s decision.”
He said he kept his reasons for leaving the RAF from his second wife and other veterans. He suffered from social anxiety and never attended reunions.
After getting prostate cancer in 2020, Walsh filed a claim for compensation against the MoD. A wing commander wrote back that – regrettably – in 1975 discrimination on grounds of actual or perceived sexual orientation was lawful.
The officer said his “discharge appeared to have been unfair” as he had not been given a chance to see the evidence against him or respond to allegations, but added: “In 1975 your discharge was considered to be reasonable as well as lawful, even though what you experienced would not be countenanced today.” She pointed him to avenues of support and recognition for service veterans.
Walsh, from east London, tried to sue the MoD for discrimination at London central employment tribunal. He represented himself at the hearing, while the MoD was represented by a KC.
The employment judge Holly Stout has now dismissed his case, saying the tribunal had no jurisdiction over it.
The judge concluded that under the sexual orientation regulations that came into force in 2003, unlawful discrimination can be brought to an employment tribunal. But as the tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to discrimination that was unlawful, Walsh’s claim could not be heard as it was lawful at the time.
