Gay ban veterans announce plans to take Ministry of Defence to court

Two veterans who say they were forced to resign from the armed forces because of their sexuality have launched legal action against the Ministry of Defence (MoD), challenging the fairness of a compensation scheme set up to support those affected by the historic ban on LGBT personnel.

Steven Stewart, 55, and Mark Shephard, 49, claim they were “effectively forced to resign” from military service and suffered “enduring psychological and relational harm” as a result. They are now taking the MoD to the High Court over the rules of the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme, which their lawyers argue is “structurally unfair”.

The law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing the pair, confirmed on Tuesday that a legal claim had been filed. A hearing date has yet to be set.

Gay men and lesbian women were banned from serving in the British military until 2000, with an estimated 200 to 250 personnel dismissed each year because of their sexuality. Precise figures are unclear, as comprehensive records were not kept.

In 2024, ministers approved a £75m compensation scheme for those affected by the policy, which saw some service members jailed, stripped of their medals, or deprived of pension rights. The scheme followed recommendations made in Lord Etherton’s independent review in 2023.

Under the scheme, eligible veterans can receive a flat-rate payment of £50,000 if they were dismissed or administratively discharged, alongside “impact payments” of up to £20,000 depending on individual circumstances.

However, the claimants’ barrister, Kate Gallafent KC, argues that the rules exclude those who were “constructively dismissed” - meaning they felt compelled to resign - from receiving the higher payment because they were not formally dismissed.

Stewart and Shephard were awarded £7,000 and £5,000 respectively in impact payments, but their applications for the £50,000 payment were rejected on the grounds of ineligibility. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed.

Gallafent said that veterans who resigned under pressure, often faced with ultimatums, could receive significantly less compensation than those formally discharged.

Stewart, who served as a corporal in the Royal Military Police between 1988 and 1995, told the court he had been arrested, interviewed under caution and removed from his unit before resigning after being warned he could face a court martial and possible imprisonment.

“Leaving under those circumstances was devastating,” he said. “My military career ended overnight. The impact of that decision has stayed with me ever since.”

Shephard, who served in the Royal Air Force from 1995 to 2001, is said to have experienced persistent bullying. In 1999, he was directly asked by a commanding officer if he was gay, which he confirmed, unaware at the time of the ban. He later sought voluntary release to avoid dismissal.

An MoD spokesperson said the department “deeply regrets” the treatment of LGBT personnel between 1967 and 2000, describing it as “wholly unacceptable”.

“Whilst we acknowledge the hurt caused to veterans who felt compelled to resign, the dismissed and discharged payment was designed to recognise those who were dishonourably removed from service,” the spokesperson added.