Britain's Defence Secretary, Lord Robertson, swiftly announced yesterday that the government would accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights overturning the UK's ban on gays in the armed forces. He said that all disciplinary cases still pending would be put on hold.
After the court ruling in Strasbourg, Lord Robertson said in a statement that ministers would now consult the heads of the armed services on ways to implement the judgment.
That consultation period could take some time and issues such as changes in living quarters and whether lesbian and gay couples would be posted together around the world would be considered.
The Human Rights Court, which also confirmed its ruling in Ireland's Norris and Northern Ireland's Dudgeon landmark cases, found the bans on gays serving in the forces to be a violation of the right to privacy. It went on to rule that the exceptional circumstances of army life did not warrant the discretion which the authorities sought to suspend such rights.
Ms Jeanette Smith, an RAF nurse, was one of four former services personnel who brought the case. "What I went through was absolutely horrendous and degrading," she said yesterday. "I was asked personal questions about my sex life and then I lost my job, my vocation and my home. I lost everything."
Another of the four, Mr John Beckett, who was a Royal Navy weapons engineer, is now a police officer. He said he would not be returning to the navy despite the ruling. "We all thought and hoped this would happen. It was just a matter of time but it is still fantastic to hear this today," he said.
In Lustig-Prean and Beckett v the UK, the court held there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life). And in the case of Smith and Grady v the UK, it also found a violation of Article 8, together with a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Mr Duncan Lustig-Prean (40), Mr Beckett (29), Ms Smith (33) and Mr Graeme Grady (36) were discharged in the years 1993 to 1995 after each had been the subject of an investigation by the service police. All admitted they were gay and were administratively discharged on the sole ground of their sexual orientation.
In November 1995 the Court of Appeal in London rejected their judicial review applications.
The Human Rights Court considered the investigations, and in particular the interviews of the applicants, to have been exceptionally intrusive. It noted that the administrative discharges had had a profound effect on the applicants' careers and prospects and considered the absolute and general character of the policy, which admitted of no exception, to be striking.
It ruled that the investigations conducted into the applicants' sexual orientation, together with their discharge from the armed forces, constituted especially grave interferences with their private lives.
The British government's reliance on the contention that the presence of gays in the military would adversely affect morale had been largely based on the results of a survey of military personnel.
Insofar as the military personnel's negative views represented a predisposed bias on the part of heterosexuals, the court considered that such bias could not, of itself, justify the policy any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a different race, origin or colour.
The court took the view that the sort of problems which the army believed could arise from the presence of gays in the military could be better addressed by a strict code of conduct than by a ban.
The court reserved the issue of compensation or a remedy for another day. The judgment was delivered by a seven-judge chamber consisting of judges from Britain, France, Cyprus, Albania, Norway, Austria and Lithuania.
Commenting on the judgment the Conservative defence spokesman, Mr Richard Ottoway, said he supported the service chiefs who believed that the ruling could affect morale and therefore the ban on homosexuals should remain.
A Defence Forces spokesman said there was no ban on gay people joining the Army in Ireland, but there was a code of conduct which covered all sexual relations between members of the force. This did not mention homosexuality specifically.