War internee wins case but must await decision on restitution

AN 81-YEAR-OLD woman interned by the Japanese during the Second World War yesterday won a High Court ruling that a government scheme that denied her compensation because she was "not quite British enough" was unlawful.

But doubt still remains over whether Diana Elias will receive the 10,000 made available by the Ministry of Defence scheme for British civilians who survived the notorious internment camps set up in the Far East. The judge did not order a payment, but has left it to the MoD to reconsider the scheme's eligibility criteria - and Mrs Elias's case - in the light of his ruling.

Her application was rejected because she did not have "blood ties" with the UK. The scheme makes awards only to those born in the UK, or whose parents or grandparents were born here.

Mrs Elias, now a widow and living in London, was born in Hong Kong and her parents were from India and Iraq. The family was interned because they were British when the Japanese invaded Hong Kong in 1941, when the colony was part of the British Empire. She remained imprisoned until liberation in 1945.

Mr Justice Elias, no relation to Mrs Elias, ruled that the compensation scheme "was unlawful and indirectly discriminated against those of non-British national origin". But following legal argument, the judge said: "I am satisfied that it would not be appropriate for me to order that compensation should be awarded to Mrs Elias as a consequence of my judgment."

He had been told by counsel for the government that the effect of the quashing of the rejection of Mrs Elias's application was that the Secretary of State - subject to the outcome of any appeal - would reconsider the scheme's criteria in the light of yesterday's judgment. Then there would be a reconsideration of Mrs Elias's application.

Afterwards Mrs Elias said: "I am happy that I have got the judgment. I have waited 60 years." Smiling, she added: "I would also have liked to have received 10,000."

In his ruling, Mr Justice Elias said the government's desire to limit those who could claim under the compensation scheme to persons with a close link with the UK at the time of internment was "a legitimate aim". But deciding who could receive awards by reference to place of birth, or whether a parent or grandparent was born in Britain, was not justifiable in all the circumstances, he said.

Depending on the approach the MoD now takes in the light of Mrs Elias's victory, the ruling could have far-reaching implications. More than 2,000 people have had their claims for the 10,000 award rejected - 1,100 of them because of the lack of a blood link with the UK. Lawyers estimate that up to 24 million is at stake.

Mrs Elias was 17 when Hong Kong fell to the Japanese on Christmas Day 1941, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The colonial authorities gave the Japanese a list of British subjects, and Mrs Elias and her family were rounded up with others and interned at Stanley Camp, where she remained until the liberation of Hong Kong in 1945.

Mrs Elias's QC, Rabinder Singh, told the court in a recent two-day hearing that led to yesterday's ruling, that her experiences while interned were "so awful" they could not be revealed in public. She had been interned "because she was a British subject", he said.

But the MoD had decided she was "not quite British enough" to receive the ex gratia 10,000 award for her suffering.