Married veteran loses discrimination case after RAF wrongly assumed he was gay

A married veteran who was dishonourably discharged after the RAF believed he was gay has lost a discrimination case in a decades-long fight to clear his name.

Cpl Sean Walsh, 75, claims he was discriminated against because he was falsely accused of having “homosexual tendencies” and ordered to leave after more than 10 years’ service.

At the time, there was a ban on gay men and women serving in the Armed Forces.

He has now lost his sexual orientation discrimination case after an employment tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the incident, which happened nearly 50 years ago.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) previously told Mr Walsh that while what he experienced in 1975 “would not be countenanced today”, the decision was still lawful.

The allegation

Mr Walsh - a telegraphist in the RAF who was entrusted with “top secret” duties and had an Aden terrorist campaign medal - served from September 1963 until he was discharged in August 1975.

That year he was at the now-closed RAF Gan base in the Maldives when he found himself at the centre of allegations that he had had a relationship with a “transvestite” while in Singapore.

Mr Walsh 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 accused of having homosexual tendencies because a former colleague said I went with a transvestite in Singapore. [It is] not true.”

He continued: “The sergeant, accompanied by two other military policemen, then carried out an unlawful search of my room while I was not allowed inside, and personal letters were confiscated.

“In addition, a stock tourist photo of a Singaporean transvestite, which many serving personnel who served there had as souvenirs, was confiscated. None of the items [were] ever returned to me.”

He was transported back to RAF Innsworth, Glos, and told he faced jail time.

A dishonourable discharge

Mr Walsh said: “I was advised by the Officer Commanding RAF Innsworth that the allegations into my sexuality were sufficient to warrant my discharge, and I was given the following two choices.

“Accept the findings and subsequent judgement of the investigating (RAF) authority, or be tried by court martial, with the possibility of a custodial sentence in a military prison.

“I felt I had no choice other than the former, and was given a dishonourable discharge, annotated on my RAF Records as ‘Services No Longer Required’.”

He added: “I married my second wife in 1981, and kept secret from her the real reason for my discharge from the RAF, as I did with other veterans and ex colleagues.”

In 2000, the MoD’s gay ban was lifted. Three years later, Mr Walsh instructed solicitors to help him seek justice over his discharge, which meant having to tell his wife the real reason he had left the RAF, which he had hidden from her for 20 years.

However, solicitors told him he “stood no reasonable prospect” of success as the laws did not cover the discrimination he alleged happened.

Sexual orientation discrimination

In 2020, Mr Walsh attempted to clear his name again by filing a claim for compensation against the MoD. However, the case was treated as historic and the investigating officer said there was nothing that could be done.

The officer said: “In 1975 your discharge was considered to be reasonable as well as lawful, even though what you experienced would not be countenanced today.”

Mr Walsh, from east London, later decided to sue the MoD for sexual orientation discrimination at a London central employment tribunal.

However, employment Judge Holly Stout dismissed his case in May and said the tribunal had no jurisdiction over it.

She said that as the tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to discrimination that was unlawful, Mr Walsh’s claim could not be heard as the decision to discharge him had been lawful at the time.

The tribunal heard that as well as seeking action against the MoD through a British tribunal, this year Mr Walsh submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the UK Government, claiming a violation of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.