European Court of Human Rights

1. European Court of Human Rights DUDGEON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 7525/76 [1981] ECHR 5 (22 October 1981) Presented by: Juraj Stodolovsky

2. 1.Brief scheme of the procedure The Dudgeon case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission"). The case originated in an application against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission on 22 May 1976 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a United Kingdom citizen, Mr. Jeffrey Dudgeon.

3. The Commission's request was lodged with the registry of the Court on 18 July 1980.The purpose of the Commission's requestis to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether or not the facts of the case disclose a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, taken alone orin conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+8).

4. 1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well‑being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rightsand freedoms of others. • Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

5. Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination • The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status

6. 2.As to the facts Mr. Jeffrey Dudgeon, who is 35 years of age, is a shipping clerk resident in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Mr. Dudgeon is a homosexual and his complaints are directed primarily against the existence in Northern Ireland of laws which have the effect of making certain homosexual acts between consenting adult males criminal offences.

7. On 21 January 1976, the police went to Mr. Dudgeon's address toexecute a warrant under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. During thesearch of the house a quantity of cannabis was found whichsubsequently led to another person being charged with drug offences.Personal papers, including correspondence and diaries, belonging to the applicant in which were described homosexual activities were also found and seized. As a result, he was asked to go to a police station where for about four and a half hours he was questioned, on the basis of these papers, about his sexual life. The police investigation file was sent to the Director of Prosecutions. It was considered with a view to instituting proceedings for the offence of gross indecency between males. The Director, in consultation with the Attorney General, decided that it would not be in the public interest for proceedings to be brought. Mr. Dudgeon was so informed in February 1977 and his papers, with annotations marked over them, were returned to him.

8. 3.Relevant domestic lawThe relevant provisions currently in force in Northern Ireland are contained in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 ("the 1861 Act"), the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 ("the 1855 Act") and thecommon law.(under sections 61 and 62 of the 1861 Act, committing and attempting tocommit buggery are made offences punishable with maximum sentences of life imprisonment and ten years' imprisonment, respectively.)In England and Wales the current law on male homosexual acts is contained in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 ("the 1956 Act") as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 ("the 1967 Act").

9. The 1967 Act qualified sections 12 and 13 of the 1956 Act by providing that, subject to certain exceptions, buggeryand acts of gross indecency in private between consenting males aged 21 years or over should not be criminal offences.In March 1972, the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued and Northern Ireland was made subject to "direct rule" from WestminsterOn 27 July 1978, the Government published a proposal for a draftHomosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, the effect ofwhich would have been to bring Northern Ireland law on the matter,broadly into line with that of England and Wales. In particular,homosexual acts in private between two consenting male adults overthe age of 21 would no longer have been punishable In Northern Ireland, in contrast, the law has remained unchanged.

10. 4.THE ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 8The applicant complained that under the law in force in NorthernIreland he is liable to criminal prosecution on account of hishomosexual conduct and that he has experienced fear, suffering andpsychological distress directly caused by the very existence of thelaws in question - including fear of harassment and blackmail. Hefurther complained that, following the search of his house inJanuary 1976, he was questioned by the police about certainhomosexual activities and that personal papers belonging to him wereseized during the search and not returned until more than a yearlater. He alleged that, in breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, hehas thereby suffered, and continues to suffer, an unjustifiedinterference with his right to respect for his private life.It is evident from Mr. Dudgeon's submissions, however,that his complaint was in essence directed against the fact thathomosexual acts which he might commit in private with other malescapable of valid consent are criminal offences under the law ofNorthern Ireland.

11. The Commission saw no reason to doubt the general truth of the applicant's allegations concerning the fear and distress that he has suffered in consequence of the existence of the laws in question. In the Government's submission, the law in Northern Ireland relating to homosexual acts does not give rise to a breach ofArticle 8 (art. 8), in that it is justified by the terms of paragraph 2 of the Article (art. 8-2) The Court sees no reason to differ from the views of the Commission: the maintenance in force of the impugned legislation constitutes a continuing interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life (which includes his sexual life) within the meaning of Article 8 par. 1Moreover, the police investigation in January 1976 was, in relation to the legislation in question, a specific measure of implementation- albeit short of actual prosecution - which directly affected the applicant in the enjoyment of his right to respect for his private life (see paragraph 33 above). As such, it showed that the threat hanging over him was real.

12. In practice there islegislation on the matter in all the member States of the Council ofEurope, but what distinguishes the law in Northern Ireland from thatexisting in the great majority of the member States is that itprohibits generally gross indecency between males and buggerywhatever the circumstances. It being accepted that some form oflegislation is "necessary" to protect particular sections ofsociety as well as the moral ethos of society as a whole, thequestion in the present case is whether the contested provisions ofthe law of Northern Ireland and their enforcement remain within thebounds of what, in a democratic society, may be regarded asnecessary in order to accomplish those aims.In Northern Ireland itself, the authorities have refrained in recent years fromenforcing the law in respect of private homosexual acts betweenconsenting males over the age of 21 years capable of valid consent(see paragraph 30 above). No evidence has been adduced to show thatthis has been injurious to moral standards in Northern Ireland or thatthere has been any public demand for stricter enforcement of the law.It cannot be maintained in these circumstances that there is a "pressing social need" to make such acts criminal offences

13. To sum up, the restriction imposed on Mr. Dudgeon under NorthernIreland law, by reason of its breadth and absolute character, is,quite apart from the severity of the possible penalties providedfor, disproportionate to the aims sought to be achieved.The Court has already acknowledged the legitimate necessity in ademocratic society for some degree of control over homosexualconduct notably in order to provide safeguards against theexploitation and corruption of those who are specially vulnerable byreason, for example, of their youth

14. ConclusionMr. Dudgeon has suffered and continues to suffer an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life. There is accordingly a breach of Article 8 (art. 8)Once it has been held that the restriction on the applicant's right torespect for his private sexual life give rise to a breach of Article 8(art. 8) by reason of its breadth and absolute character (seeparagraph 61 in fine above), there is no useful legal purpose to beserved in determining whether he has in addition suffereddiscrimination as compared with other persons who are subject to lesser limitations on the same rightThe Court accordingly does not deem it necessary to examine thecase under Article 14 (art. 14) as well.The Court did not grant the remedy sought instead it referred back to the Chamber in accordance with Rule 50 par. 4 of the Rules of Court.