A.D.T. v. United Kingdom
From DADEL
Case Summary
Case of A.D.T. v. United Kingdom
European Court of Human Rights
Application no. 35765/97
Judgment of 31/7/2000
The Applicant, identified only as Mr. A.D.T., a United Kingdom national, alleges that his conviction for gross indecency constituted a violation of his right to respect for his private life, protected by Article 8 of the Convention. He also alleges a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Article 8.
Contents |
Facts
The Applicant is a practicing homosexual. Police officers conducted a search under warrant of his home, seizing various items including photographs and videotapes. The applicant was arrested. On 2 April 1996 the applicant was charged with gross indecency between men contrary to section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The charge was based on the commission of sexual acts in one of the videotapes, which depicted the Applicant with four other men. The charge did not relate to the making or distribution of the tapes. The acts involved consenting adult men and took place in the privacy of the Applicant's home.The Applicant was convicted of gross indecency. He was sentenced and conditionally discharged for two years. The Applicant was advised by counsel that an appeal would have no prospect of success, so he did not pursue an appeal.
Admissibility
The Application was found to be admissible.
Merits
The Court examines whether there was an interference with Applicants rights under Article 8, and whether the interference was justified. The Court observes that "the mere existence of legislation prohibiting male homosexual conduct in private may continuously and directly affect a person's private life." The issue in this case is whether, due to the video-recording of the activities, the Applicant's private life was involved. The Court finds that there was no likelihood of the tapes being made public, especially in light of the Applicant's desire for anonymity, and the fact that he concealed his sexual orientation. The Court therefore finds that the Applicant's right to respect for his private life has been interfered with, both as regards the existence of legislation prohibiting consensual sexual acts between more than two men in private and as regards the conviction for gross indecency.
In order for an interference to be justified, it must be "in accordance with the law," have an aim that is legitimate, and be "necessary in a democratic society" for achievement of the legitimate aim. There is no disagreement that the interference in this case was in accordance with the law. The Court finds also that the aim pursued by the legislation (protecting morals and protecting the rights and freedoms of others) was legitimate.
The Court thus goes on to assess whether the legislation in this case, and its application in prosecuting the Applicant, were necessary in a democratic society. The Court notes that the Applicant was prosecuted for the activities depicted on the tapes, not for the recording, or for any risk of the tapes entering the public domain. The activities were therefore "private." Therefore, the prosecution is not justified for the purpose of protecting public health or morals.
The Court found that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention and therefore did not examine the case under that provision.
Decision
The Court finds that Article 8 of the Convention has been violated and awards the applicant the sum of GBP 20,929.05 in damages, GBP 13,771.28 in costs, and interest