PROCEDURE

The case originated in two applications against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The first applicant, Mr Duncan Lustig-Prean, is a British national born in 1959 and resident in London. He was represented before the Commission and, subsequently, before the Court by Mr S. Grosz, a solicitor practising in London. His application was introduced on 23 April 1996 and was registered on 7 May 1996 under file no. 31417/96. The second applicant, Mr John Beckett, is a British national born in 1970 and resident in Sheffield. He was represented before the Commission and, subsequently, before the Court by Ms H. Larter, a solicitor practising in Sheffield. His application was introduced on 11 July 1996 and was registered on 22 July 1996 under file no. 32377/96.

Both applicants complained that the investigations into their homosexuality and their discharge from the Royal Navy on the sole ground that they are homosexual constituted violations of Article 8 of the Covention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14.

On 20 May 1997 the Commission (Plenary) decided to give notice of the applications to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) and invited them to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications. In addition, the applications were joined to two similar applications (nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, Smith v. the United Kingdom and Grady v. the United Kingdom). The Government, represented by Mr M. Eaton and, subsequently, by Mr C. Whomersley, both Agents, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, submitted their observations on 17 October 1997, to which the applicants replied on 20 November and 8 December 1997, respectively.

On 17 January 1998 the Commission decided to adjourn the applications pending the outcome of a reference to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome by the English High Court on the question of the applicability of the Council Directive on the Implementation of the Principle of Equal Treatment for Men and Women as regards Access to Employment, Vocational Training and Promotion and Working Conditions 76/207/EEC (“the Equal Treatment Directive”) to a difference of treatment based on sexual orientation.

On 23 January 1998 the Commission granted Mr Beckett legal aid.

On 13 July 1998 the High Court delivered its judgment withdrawing its reference of the above question given the decision of the ECJ in the case of R. v. Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte Perkins (13 July 1998).

Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1 November 1998 and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 § 2 thereof, the applications fall to be examined by the Court. In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court, Mr L. Wildhaber, assigned the case to the Third Section. The Chamber constituted within the Section included ex officio Sir Nicolas Bratza, the judge elected in respect of the United Kingdom (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 26 § 1 (a)), and Mr J.-P. Costa, Acting President of the Section and President of the Chamber (Rules 12 and 26 § 1 (a)). The other members designated by the latter to complete the Chamber were Mr L. Loucaides, Mr P. Kūris, Mr W. Fuhrmann, Mrs H.S. Greve and Mr K. Traja (Rule 26 § 1 (b)).

On 23 February 1998 the Chamber declared the applications admissible and, while it retained the joinder of the present applications, it decided to disjoin them from the above-mentioned Smith and Grady cases. It was also decided to hold a hearing on the merits of the case.

On 4 May 1999 the President of the Chamber decided to grant Mr Lustig-Prean legal aid.

The hearing in this case and in the case of Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 18 May 1999. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr C. Whomersley, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr J. Eadie, Counsel, Mr J. Betteley, Ms J. Pfieffer, Advisers; (b) for the applicants Mr D. Pannick QC, Mr J. Bowers QC, Counsel, Mr S. Grosz, Ms H. Larter, Solicitors, Mr A. Mason, Adviser. The Court heard addresses by Mr Pannick and Mr Eadie.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. The Circumstances of the case

A. The first applicant

Mr Lustig-Prean (the first applicant) joined the Royal Navy Reserve as a radio operator and in 1982 commenced a career in the Royal Navy. On 27 April 1983 he became a midshipman in the executive branch of the navy. His evaluation of November 1989 noted that he was an officer with “great potential” and the “sort of person that the Royal Navy needs to attract and retain”. His evaluation of December 1993 concluded that the applicant “is a balanced, enlightened and knowledgeable man who enjoys my complete trust in all matters. He is an outstanding prospect for early promotion to commander.” In 1994 the applicant attained the rank of lieutenant-commander.

For about thirty months prior to June 1994 the applicant had been involved in a steady relationship with a civilian partner. In early June 1994 the applicant was informed that the Royal Navy Special Investigations Branch (“the service police”) had been given his name anonymously in connection with an allegation of homosexuality and was investigating the matter. The applicant admitted to his commanding officer that he was homosexual.

The applicant was interviewed on 13 June 1994 by personnel from the service police about his sexual orientation for approximately twenty minutes. At the beginning of the interview, the applicant was cautioned that he did not have to answer questions and that any responses could be used in evidence later. He was also informed that he could obtain legal advice. The applicant confirmed his awareness of those rights and agreed to be interviewed without legal advice. He then confirmed that he was homosexual, acknowledging that he had been a practising homosexual since his teenage years. He was then asked, inter alia, whether he had had homosexual contact with service personnel (at least four questions on this subject), what type of sexual relations he had had with a particular person, when and where this had occurred, about his current relationship and whether his parents knew of his homosexuality. The applicant was asked repeatedly about who had tipped him off that he was the subject of an investigation by the service police and he was told that the question was put because the service police had “a lot of background knowledge about certain things” and there was somebody “providing information to us”. The applicant indicated that he was anxious to assist the service police to make sure that the issue was kept as “private and discreet as possible”. He was then informed that a search was normally completed but the search did not take place since, in anticipation, the applicant had already cleared his cabin of any incriminating evidence.

The applicant was again interviewed on 14 June 1994 for approximately ten minutes. It was explained to the applicant that the purpose of the interview was to ask him about an allegation, contained in an anonymous letter sent to the applicant’s commanding officer some time previously, that the applicant had had a relationship with a serviceman. The interviewer then explained that he was “attempting to keep the need to visit Newcastle and to investigate this matter to a minimum”, as the applicant wished. The applicant was then asked whether he had had the relationship as alleged in the letter. The anonymous letter was read. The writer claimed that he had recently had a relationship with the applicant, that the writer was HIV-positive and that he believed that the applicant was involved with a member of the armed forces. The applicant’s comments were requested, in particular, as to who would have written the letter. The interviewer also enquired of the applicant “purely as a matter of interest, although it’s a personal thing” whether the applicant was HIV-positive. In this context, it was indicated a number of times to the applicant that the purpose of the second interview was to avoid further investigations. He was also told that it would “come back” on the applicant’s interviewer if the latter did not properly follow up on the anonymous letter.

In a final evaluation dated 14 June 1994 the applicant’s commander noted that the applicant left the ship “with a well-deserved reputation for outstanding professional ability and admirable personal qualities”. He concluded that the applicant’s “loyal, dependable and always dignified service” would be “sorely missed”.

On 16 December 1994 the Admiralty Board informed the applicant that it had decided to terminate his commission and to discharge him, administratively, from the navy with effect from 17 January 1995. The ground for his discharge was his sexual orientation. The applicant’s commission was removed and most of the bonus which he had received with that promotion was recouped by the naval authorities (£4,875 out of £6,000). His term of service would otherwise have terminated in 2009, with the possibility of renewal.

B. The second applicant

On 20 February 1989 Mr Beckett (the second applicant) joined the Royal Navy, enlisting for twenty-two years’ service. In 1991 he became a substantive weapons engineering mechanic. The applicant’s report dated 27 November 1992 noted that he displayed potential in a number of areas essential to good leadership, that he had the ability to become an above-average leading hand and that if he applied his new skills wisely he could, with experience, be considered as a potential officer candidate.

In May 1993 the applicant had been refused time off to deal with a personal matter (he wished to collect his Aids test results) and consequently he spoke with the chaplain, to whom he admitted his sexual orientation. On 10 May 1993 the applicant was asked by his lieutenant-commander to repeat what he had told the chaplain and he again admitted his homosexuality to that officer. He was then called for interview by the service police. He was cautioned in the same terms as the first applicant and told that he would not be questioned on the above admissions prior to a search of his locker. His consent to the search was requested and given. The interview, which had lasted approximately five minutes, was suspended pending the search. During the search, slides (of himself, his partner and some of his service friends) and personal postcards were seized.

The applicant’s interview with the service police then resumed and lasted approximately one hour. The applicant immediately confirmed his homosexuality, later clarifying that he first had “niggling doubts” about his sexual orientation approximately two and a half years previously. He was then questioned about a previous relationship with a woman; he was asked the woman’s name and where she was from, when he had that relationship, why it ended, whether they had a sexual relationship, whether he enjoyed their relationship and whether “she was enough for you”. Details were sought as to how and what he did when he realised he was homosexual and, in this respect, he was asked what sort of feelings he had for a man, whether he had been “touched up” or “abused” as a child and whether he had bought pornographic magazines. The applicant was then questioned about his first and current homosexual relationship which began in December 1992 and, in this regard, he was asked about his first night with his partner, who was “butch” and who was “bitch” in the relationship and what being “butch” meant in sexual terms. Detailed questions were put as to how they had sex and whether they used condoms, lubrication and other sex aids, whether they ever had sex in a public place and how they intended to develop the relationship. He was also asked about gay bars he frequented, whether he had ever joined contact magazines, whether his parents knew about his homosexuality and whether he agreed that his secret life could be used as a basis to blackmail him and render him a weak link in the service. The personal slides and postcards which had been taken from his locker were examined and the applicant was questioned in detail about their contents.

The service police report completed after the applicant’s interview included several internal documents where it was noted that the applicant, in openly declaring his homosexuality and his relationship with a civilian, had effectively disposed “of any immediate potential security concern”. For that reason, it was considered in the report that “no cause was identified for conducting a security interview with Beckett”. That report also accepted that a case for fraudulent entry into the armed forces would be inappropriate given the date when the applicant had discovered his homosexuality. An officer, who advised the Admiralty Board on the applicant’s discharge, noted that the applicant’s reporting officers had commented on his “affability, intelligence, dedication and ambition” and pointed out that, had it not been for the applicant’s homosexuality, “his Royal Navy career would have blossomed”.

Prior to his discharge, the applicant completed his duties and remained in communal sleeping accommodation with no reported difficulties. On 28 July 1993 the applicant’s administrative discharge was approved on the basis of his homosexuality. The applicant then complained about the decision to discharge him to the Admiralty Board and on 6 December 1994 the Admiralty Board dismissed the applicant’s complaint.

C. The applicants’ judicial review proceedings (R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith and Others 2 Weeky Law Reports 305)

Along with Ms Smith and Mr Grady (see paragraph 3 above), the applicants obtained leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions to discharge them from the armed forces. The applicants argued that the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces was “irrational”, that it was in breach of the Convention and that it was contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive. The Ministry of Defence maintained that the policy was necessary mainly to maintain morale and unit effectiveness, in view of the loco parentis role of the services as regards minor recruits and in light of the requirement of communal living in the armed forces.

On 7 June 1995 the High Court dismissed the application for judicial review, Lord Justice Simon Brown giving the main judgment of the court. He noted that the cases illustrated the hardships resulting from the absolute policy against homosexuals in the armed forces and that all four of the applicants had exemplary service records, some with reports written in glowing terms. Moreover, he found that in none of the cases before him was it suggested that the applicants’ sexual orientation had in any way affected their ability to carry out their work or had any ill-effect on discipline. There was no reason to doubt that, but for their discharge on the sole ground of sexual orientation, they would have continued to perform their service duties entirely efficiently and with the continued support of their colleagues. All were devastated by their discharge. Simon Brown LJ reviewed the background to the “age old” policy, the relevance of the Parliamentary Select Committee’s report of 1991, the position in other armed forces around the world, the arguments of the Ministry of Defence (noting that the security argument was no longer of substantial concern to the Government) together with the applicants’ arguments against the policy. He considered that the balance of argument clearly lay with the applicants, describing the applicants’ submissions in favour of a conduct-based code as “powerful”. In his view, the tide of history was against the Ministry of Defence. He further observed that it was improbable, whatever the High Court would say, that the policy could survive for much longer and added, “I doubt whether most of those present in court throughout the proceedings now believe otherwise.”

However, having considered arguments as to the test to be applied in the context of these judicial review proceedings, Simon Brown LJ concluded that the conventional Wednesbury principles, adapted to a human rights context, should be applied. Accordingly, where fundamental human rights were being restricted, the Minister of Defence needed to show that there was an important competing interest to justify the restriction. The primary decision was for him and the secondary judgment of the court amounted to asking whether a reasonable Minister, on the material before him, could have reasonably made that primary judgment. He later clarified that it was only if the purported justification “outrageously defies logic or accepted moral standards” that the court could strike down the Minister’s decision. He noted that within the limited scope of that review, the court had to be scrupulous to ensure that no recognised ground of challenge was in truth available to an applicant before rejecting the application. When the most fundamental human rights are threatened, the court would not, for example, be inclined to overlook some minor flaw in the decision-making process, or to adopt a particularly benevolent view of the Minister’s evidence, or to exercise its discretion to withhold relief. However, he emphasised that, even where the most fundamental human rights were being restricted, “the threshold of unreasonableness is not lowered”. It was clear that the Secretary of State had cited an important competing public interest. But the central question was whether it was reasonable for the Secretary of State to take the view that allowing homosexuals into the forces would imperil that interest. He pointed out that, although he might have considered the Minister wrong, “…[the courts] owe a duty ... to remain within their constitutional bounds and not trespass beyond them. Only if it were plain beyond sensible argument that no conceivable damage could be done to the armed services as a fighting unit would it be appropriate for this Court now to remove the issue entirely from the hands of both the military and of the government. If the Convention … were part of our law and we were accordingly entitled to ask whether the policy answers a pressing social need and whether the restriction on human rights involved can be shown proportionate to the benefits then clearly the primary judgment … would be for us and not others: the constitutional balance would shift. But that is not the position. In exercising merely a secondary judgment, this Court is bound to act with some reticence. Our approach must reflect, not overlook, where responsibility ultimately lies for the defence of the realm and recognise too that Parliament is exercising a continuing supervision over this area of prerogative power.” Accordingly, while the Minister’s suggested justification for the ban may have seemed “unconvincing”, the Minister’s stand could not properly be said to be unlawful. It followed that the applications had to be rejected “albeit with hesitation and regret”. A brief analysis of the Convention’s case-law led the judge to comment that he strongly suspected that, as far as the United Kingdom’s obligations were concerned, the days of the policy were numbered.

Simon Brown LJ also found that the Equal Treatment Directive was not applicable to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and that the domestic courts could not rule on Convention matters. He also observed that the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Israel, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands permitted homosexuals to serve in their armed forces and that the evidence indicated that the only countries operating a blanket ban were Turkey and Luxembourg (and, possibly, Portugal and Greece).

In August 1995 a consultation paper was circulated by the Ministry of Defence to “management” levels in the armed forces relating to the Ministry of Defence’s policy against homosexuals in those forces. The covering letter circulating this paper pointed out that the “Minister for the Armed Forces has decided that evidence is to be gathered within the Ministry of Defence in support of the current policy on homosexuality”. It was indicated that the case was likely to progress to the European courts and that the applicants in the judicial review proceedings had argued that the Ministry of Defence’s position was “bereft of factual evidence” but that this was not surprising since evidence was difficult to amass given that homosexuals were not permitted to serve. Since “this should not be allowed to weaken the arguments for maintaining the policy”, the addressees of the letter were invited to comment on the consultation paper and “to provide any additional evidence in support of the current policy by September 1995”. The consultation paper attached referred, inter alia, to two incidents which were considered damaging to unit cohesion. The first involved a homosexual who had had a relationship with a sergeant’s mess waiter and the other involved an Australian on secondment whose behaviour was described as “so disruptive” that his attachment was terminated.

On 3 November 1995 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. The Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, delivered the main judgment (with which the two other judges of the Court of Appeal agreed).

As to the court’s approach to the issue of “irrationality”, he considered that the following submission was an accurate distillation of the relevant jurisprudence on the subject: “the court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision- maker. But in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above.” He went on to quote from, inter alia, the judgment of Lord Bridge in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 Appeal Cases 696, where it was pointed out that: “the primary judgment as to whether the particular competing public interest justifies the particular restriction imposed falls to be made by the Secretary of State to whom Parliament has entrusted the discretion. But we are entitled to exercise a secondary judgment by asking whether a reasonable Secretary of State, on the material before him, could reasonably make that primary judgment.” Moreover, he considered that the greater the policy content of the decision and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience, the more hesitant the court had to be in holding a decision to be irrational.

Prior to applying this test of irrationality, the Master of the Rolls noted that the case concerned innate qualities of a very personal kind, that the decisions of which the applicants complained had had a profound effect on their careers and prospects and that the applicants’ rights as human beings were very much in issue. While the domestic court was not the primary decision-maker and while it was not the role of the courts to regulate the conditions of service in the armed forces, “it has the constitutional role and duty of ensuring that the rights of citizens are not abused by the unlawful exercise of executive power. While the court must properly defer to the expertise of responsible decision-makers, it must not shrink from its fundamental duty to ‘do right to all manner of people’ …”.

He then reviewed, by reference to the test of irrationality outlined above, the submissions of the parties in favour of and against the policy, commenting that the applicants’ arguments were “of very considerable cogency” which called to be considered in depth with particular reference to past experience in the United Kingdom, to the developing experience of other countries and to the potential effectiveness of a detailed prescriptive code in place of the present blanket ban. However, he concluded that the policy could not be considered “irrational” at the time the applicants were discharged from the armed forces, finding that the threshold of irrationality was “a high one” and that it had not been crossed in this case.

On the Convention, the Master of the Rolls noted as follows: “It is, inevitably, common ground that the United Kingdom’s obligation, binding in international law, to respect and ensure compliance with [Article 8 of the Convention] is not one that is enforceable by domestic courts. The relevance of the Convention in the present context is as background to the complaint of irrationality. The fact that a decision-maker failed to take account of Convention obligations when exercising an administrative discretion is not of itself a ground for impugning the exercise of that discretion.” He observed that to dismiss a person from his or her employment on the grounds of a private sexual preference, and to interrogate him or her about private sexual behaviour, would not appear to show respect for that person’s private and family life and that there might be room for argument as to whether the policy answered a “pressing social need” and, in particular, was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. However, he held that these were not questions to which answers could be properly or usefully proffered by the Court of Appeal, but rather were questions for the European Court of Human Rights to which court the applicants might have to pursue their claim. He further accepted that the Equal Treatment Directive did not apply to complaints in relation to sexual orientation.

Henry LJ of the Court of Appeal agreed with the judgment of the Master of the Rolls and, in particular, with the latter’s approach to the irrationality test and with his view on the inability of the court to resolve Convention issues. He questioned the utility of a debate as to the likely fate of the “longstanding” policy of the Ministry of Defence before the European Court of Human Rights with which the primary adjudicating role on the Convention lay. The Court of Appeal did not entertain “hypothetical questions”. In Henry LJ’s view, the only relevance of the Convention was as “background to the complaint of irrationality”, which point had been already made by the Master of the Rolls. It was important to highlight this point since Parliament had not given the domestic courts primary jurisdiction over human rights issues contained in the Convention and because the evidence and submissions before the Court of Appeal related to that court’s secondary jurisdiction and not to its primary jurisdiction.

Thorpe LJ of the Court of Appeal agreed with both preceding judgments and, in particular, with the views expressed on the rationality test to be applied and on its application in the particular case. The applicants’ arguments that their rights under Article 8 had been breached were “persuasive” but the evidence and arguments that would ultimately determine that issue were not before the Court of Appeal. He also found that the applicants’ challenge to the arguments in support of the policy was “completely persuasive” and added that what impressed him most in relation to the merits was the complete absence of illustration and substantiation by specific examples, not only in the Secretary of State’s evidence filed in the High Court, but also in the case presented to the Parliamentary Select Committee in 1991. The policy was, in his view, “ripe for review and for consideration of its replacement by a strict conduct code”. However, the applicants’ attack on the Secretary of State’s rationality fell “a long way short of success”.

On 19 March 1996 the Appeals Committee of the House of Lords refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

D. The applicants’ Industrial Tribunal proceedings

In December 1995 Mr Lustig-Prean issued proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination contrary to the Sexual Discrimination Act 1975. Those proceedings were adjourned pending the above-described application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Further to the rejection of the application, he requested the withdrawal of his Industrial Tribunal proceedings and those proceedings were dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 25 April 1996.

In December 1997 Mr Beckett also issued proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal claiming sexual discrimination contrary to the 1975 Act. In the light of subsequent decisions of the ECJ and of the domestic courts, the second applicant subsequently requested the withdrawal of those proceedings which were, on 27 August 1998, dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e1
001-58407_a8_em1
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e2
001-58407_a8_em2
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Duncan Lustig-Prean
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e3
001-58407_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e4
001-58407_a8_em4
DATETIME
QUASI
1959
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e5
001-58407_a8_em5
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e6
001-58407_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Grosz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e5
001-58407_a8_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e7
001-58407_a8_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
23 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e8
001-58407_a8_em9
DATETIME
QUASI
7 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e9
001-58407_a8_em10
CODE
DIRECT
31417/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e10
001-58407_a8_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr John Beckett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e3
001-58407_a8_em12
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e11
001-58407_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
1970
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e12
001-58407_a8_em14
LOC
QUASI
Sheffield
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e13
001-58407_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Ms H. Larter
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e12
001-58407_a8_em16
LOC
QUASI
Sheffield
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e14
001-58407_a8_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e15
001-58407_a8_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
22 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e16
001-58407_a8_em19
CODE
QUASI
32377/96
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em20
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e18
001-58407_a8_em21
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Navy
SEX
insert
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em22
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e20
001-58407_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
20 May 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e21
001-58407_a8_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e22
001-58407_a8_em25
CODE
NO_MASK
33985/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e23
001-58407_a8_em26
CODE
NO_MASK
33986/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e24
001-58407_a8_em27
MISC
NO_MASK
Smith v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e25
001-58407_a8_em28
MISC
NO_MASK
Grady v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e26
001-58407_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Eaton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e27
001-58407_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Whomersley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e28
001-58407_a8_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
Agents, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e29
001-58407_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
17 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e30
001-58407_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November and 8 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e31
001-58407_a8_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
17 January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e32
001-58407_a8_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
European Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58407_a8_e33
001-58407_a8_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
ECJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e34
001-58407_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
23 January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e35
001-58407_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Beckett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e36
001-58407_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
13 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e37
001-58407_a8_em40
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e38
001-58407_a8_em41
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Secretary of State for Defence, ex parte Perkins
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e36
001-58407_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
13 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e39
001-58407_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Wildhaber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e40
001-58407_a8_em44
PERSON
QUASI
Sir Nicolas Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e41
001-58407_a8_em45
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e42
001-58407_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.-P. Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e43
001-58407_a8_em47
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Loucaides
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e44
001-58407_a8_em48
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Kūris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e45
001-58407_a8_em49
PERSON
QUASI
Mr W. Fuhrmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e46
001-58407_a8_em50
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs H.S. Greve
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e47
001-58407_a8_em51
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Traja
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e48
001-58407_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
23 February 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e49
001-58407_a8_em53
MISC
NO_MASK
Smith and Grady cases
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e50
001-58407_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
4 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e51
001-58407_a8_em55
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Lustig-Prean
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e52
001-58407_a8_em56
MISC
NO_MASK
Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58407_a8_e53
001-58407_a8_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e54
001-58407_a8_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
18 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e27
001-58407_a8_em59
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Whomersley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e55
001-58407_a8_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e56
001-58407_a8_em61
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Eadie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e57
001-58407_a8_em62
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Betteley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e58
001-58407_a8_em63
PERSON
QUASI
Ms J. Pfieffer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e59
001-58407_a8_em64
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Pannick QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e60
001-58407_a8_em65
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Bowers QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e6
001-58407_a8_em66
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Grosz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e13
001-58407_a8_em67
PERSON
QUASI
Ms H. Larter
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e61
001-58407_a8_em68
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Mason
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e59
001-58407_a8_em69
PERSON
QUASI
001-58407_a8_em64
Mr Pannick
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e56
001-58407_a8_em70
PERSON
QUASI
001-58407_a8_em61
Mr Eadie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e51
001-58407_a8_em71
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Lustig-Prean
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e18
001-58407_a8_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Navy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e62
001-58407_a8_em73
DEM
QUASI
radio operator
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e63
001-58407_a8_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
1982
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e18
001-58407_a8_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Navy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e64
001-58407_a8_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
27 April 1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e65
001-58407_a8_em77
DEM
QUASI
midshipman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e66
001-58407_a8_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
navy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e67
001-58407_a8_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
November 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e18
001-58407_a8_em80
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Navy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e68
001-58407_a8_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
December 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e69
001-58407_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e70
001-58407_a8_em83
DATETIME
NO_MASK
thirty months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e71
001-58407_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e71
001-58407_a8_em85
DATETIME
QUASI
June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Navy Special Investigations Branch
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
001-58407_a8_em86
the service police
SEX
insert
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em88
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em89
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e73
001-58407_a8_em90
DATETIME
QUASI
13 June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em91
ORG
NO_MASK
the service police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e74
001-58407_a8_em92
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twenty minutes
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em93
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em94
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em95
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em96
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
the service police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em98
ORG
NO_MASK
the service police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
the service police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e75
001-58407_a8_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
14 June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e76
001-58407_a8_em101
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten minutes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e77
001-58407_a8_em102
LOC
QUASI
Newcastle
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e75
001-58407_a8_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
14 June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e78
001-58407_a8_em104
DATETIME
QUASI
16 December 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e79
001-58407_a8_em105
ORG
NO_MASK
Admiralty Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e80
001-58407_a8_em106
DATETIME
QUASI
17 January 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e81
001-58407_a8_em107
QUANTITY
QUASI
£4,875
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e82
001-58407_a8_em108
QUANTITY
QUASI
£6,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e83
001-58407_a8_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e84
001-58407_a8_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
20 February 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e35
001-58407_a8_em111
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Beckett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e18
001-58407_a8_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Navy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e85
001-58407_a8_em113
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twenty-two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e86
001-58407_a8_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e87
001-58407_a8_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
27 November 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e88
001-58407_a8_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
May 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e89
001-58407_a8_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 1993
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em118
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
the service police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e90
001-58407_a8_em120
DATETIME
NO_MASK
five minutes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e72
001-58407_a8_em121
ORG
NO_MASK
the service police
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e91
001-58407_a8_em122
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one hour
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em123
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e92
001-58407_a8_em124
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two and a half years
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em125
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em126
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e93
001-58407_a8_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
December 1992
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em128
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e94
001-58407_a8_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
The service police
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em130
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e95
001-58407_a8_em131
PERSON
QUASI
Beckett
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em132
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e79
001-58407_a8_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
Admiralty Board
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em134
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e18
001-58407_a8_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
Royal Navy
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e96
001-58407_a8_em136
DATETIME
QUASI
28 July 1993
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em137
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e79
001-58407_a8_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
Admiralty Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e97
001-58407_a8_em139
DATETIME
QUASI
6 December 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e79
001-58407_a8_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Admiralty Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e98
001-58407_a8_em141
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith and Others 2 Weeky Law Reports 305
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e99
001-58407_a8_em142
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Smith
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e100
001-58407_a8_em143
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Grady
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em144
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em145
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e102
001-58407_a8_em146
DATETIME
QUASI
7 June 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e37
001-58407_a8_em147
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e103
001-58407_a8_em148
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Justice Simon Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e104
001-58407_a8_em149
PERSON
QUASI
Simon Brown LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e86
001-58407_a8_em150
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em151
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em152
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e37
001-58407_a8_em153
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e104
001-58407_a8_em154
PERSON
QUASI
Simon Brown LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e41
001-58407_a8_em155
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e104
001-58407_a8_em156
PERSON
QUASI
Simon Brown LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e105
001-58407_a8_em157
LOC
NO_MASK
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e106
001-58407_a8_em158
LOC
NO_MASK
Canada
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e107
001-58407_a8_em159
LOC
NO_MASK
Australia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e108
001-58407_a8_em160
LOC
NO_MASK
New Zealand
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e109
001-58407_a8_em161
LOC
NO_MASK
Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e110
001-58407_a8_em162
LOC
NO_MASK
Israel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e111
001-58407_a8_em163
LOC
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e112
001-58407_a8_em164
LOC
NO_MASK
France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e113
001-58407_a8_em165
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e114
001-58407_a8_em166
LOC
NO_MASK
Sweden
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e115
001-58407_a8_em167
LOC
NO_MASK
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e116
001-58407_a8_em168
LOC
NO_MASK
Netherlands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e117
001-58407_a8_em169
LOC
NO_MASK
Turkey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e118
001-58407_a8_em170
LOC
NO_MASK
Luxembourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e119
001-58407_a8_em171
LOC
NO_MASK
Portugal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e120
001-58407_a8_em172
LOC
NO_MASK
Greece
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e121
001-58407_a8_em173
DATETIME
QUASI
August 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em174
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em175
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e122
001-58407_a8_em176
ORG
NO_MASK
Armed Forces
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em177
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e17
001-58407_a8_em178
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em179
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e123
001-58407_a8_em180
DATETIME
QUASI
September 1995
SEX
check
001-58407_a8_e19
001-58407_a8_em181
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e124
001-58407_a8_em182
DEM
NO_MASK
Australian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e125
001-58407_a8_em183
DATETIME
QUASI
3 November 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e126
001-58407_a8_em184
PERSON
QUASI
Sir Thomas Bingham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58407_a8_e127
001-58407_a8_em185
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Bridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e128
001-58407_a8_em186
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e86
001-58407_a8_em187
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e129
001-58407_a8_em188
MISC
NO_MASK
1 Appeal Cases 696
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e41
001-58407_a8_em189
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e41
001-58407_a8_em190
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e130
001-58407_a8_em191
PERSON
QUASI
Henry LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e101
001-58407_a8_em192
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Defence
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58407_a8_e130
001-58407_a8_em193
PERSON
QUASI
Henry LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e131
001-58407_a8_em194
PERSON
QUASI
Thorpe LJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e37
001-58407_a8_em195
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e86
001-58407_a8_em196
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e132
001-58407_a8_em197
DATETIME
QUASI
19 March 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e133
001-58407_a8_em198
ORG
NO_MASK
Appeals Committee of the House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e134
001-58407_a8_em199
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e135
001-58407_a8_em200
ORG
NO_MASK
Industrial Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e136
001-58407_a8_em201
DATETIME
QUASI
December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e51
001-58407_a8_em202
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Lustig-Prean
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e135
001-58407_a8_em203
ORG
NO_MASK
Industrial Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e134
001-58407_a8_em204
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e135
001-58407_a8_em205
ORG
NO_MASK
Industrial Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e135
001-58407_a8_em206
ORG
NO_MASK
Industrial Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e137
001-58407_a8_em207
DATETIME
QUASI
25 April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e138
001-58407_a8_em208
DATETIME
QUASI
December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e35
001-58407_a8_em209
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Beckett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e135
001-58407_a8_em210
ORG
NO_MASK
Industrial Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e33
001-58407_a8_em211
ORG
NO_MASK
ECJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e139
001-58407_a8_em212
DATETIME
QUASI
27 August 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58407_a8_e135
001-58407_a8_em213
ORG
NO_MASK
Industrial Tribunal
Duncan Lustig-Prean
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Duncan Lustig-Prean