B.B. v. United Kingdom
From DADEL
Case Summary
B.B. v. United Kingdom
European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 53760/00
Judgment of 10/02/2004
The applicant alleged that his arrest and charge according to legislation which set down different ages of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the decision to prosecute him but not the sixteen-year old boy constituted discrimination on the grounds of age, in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.
Contents |
Facts
The applicant contacted the police after a young man with whom he had had homosexual relations attacked him. He was arrested for allegedly engaging in “buggery” [homosexual relations] with a young man aged 16 years of age contrary to section 12(1) and schedule 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The applicant was in his early 40s at the time the events occurred.
Following formal charges, he wrote to the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) to complain that the criminal proceedings against him constituted a violation of his human rights pursuant to the ECHR’s decision in Sutherland v. the UK (no. 25186/94, Commission’s report of 1 July 1997, unpublished). The Central Criminal Court later formally acquitted him.
The applicant pointed out that he had repeatedly notified the officials carrying out the proceedings against him that his human rights were being violated with respect to the Court’s decision in Sutherland. He claims that, given that the incident only came to the attention of the authorities following his claim of assault against the younger man, the state failed to exercise its duty to protect him, and instead subjected him to prosecution in violation of the Convention.
The Government conceded violation of article 8 in conjunction with article 14. However, it pointed to the 2001 amendment to the sexual offence law fixing the ages of consent for both hetero- and homosexual acts at sixteen. It further highlighted its efforts to perform a comprehensive review of the sexual offence law to eliminate improper differentiation based on gender or sexual orientation.
Admissibility
The Application was found admissible.
Merits
The Court reiterated its decision in Sutherland that the difference in age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts constituted a violation of Art. 8, in conjunction with Art. 14 of the Convention. The Court noted that, despite a subsequent equalization of the ages of consent for both types of sexual acts, the applicant was nonetheless prosecuted under the old law. Despite his eventual acquittal, the Court found it proper to examine the case. In light of this finding, the Court found it unnecessary to address the age discrimination claim.
Decision
The Court found that, following precedent in Sutherland and in S.L. v. Austria and L. and V. v. Austria, the existence of the sexual act legislation in question and the prosecution of the applicant according to this legislation, constituted a violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.