In 1976, Jeffrey Dudgeon, a gay man living in Belfast, Northern Ireland, complained that Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, criminalising same-sex acts between consenting adult males, was a violation of Article 8 (right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The rest of the United Kingdom had decriminalised such acts, England and Wales in 1967 and Scotland in 1980.
In January 1976, the applicant’s home was searched during the execution of a warrant to search for drugs. During the search, documents were seized describing ‘homosexual activities’ and Dudgeon was questioned by the police about his sexual life. The file was sent to the Director of Prosecutions with a view to instituting proceedings for the offence of gross indecency between males. The Director decided it would not be in the public interest for the proceedings to be brought. However, Dudgeon claimed to the European Commission of Human Rights that the existence of criminalising provisions constituted an unjustified interference with his right to private life under Article 8, and that he had suffered discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention. The Commission referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Considering Article 8, Dudgeon claimed that being liable to criminal prosecution had caused him to experience fear, suffering and psychological distress, including fear of harassment and blackmail. The Court found that the existence of the laws interfered with the applicants right to private life: ‘either he respects the law and refrains from engaging– even in private with consenting male partners- in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his homosexual tendencies, or he commits such acts and thereby becomes liable to criminal prosecution.’ The Court found that the police investigation against Dudgeon in January 1976 ‘showed that the threat hanging over him was real.’
The Government argued that the law was justified because it sought to safeguard young persons from ‘undesirable and harmful pressures and attentions’ and for ‘the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ The Court found that ‘although members of the public who regard homosexuality as immoral may be shocked, offended or disturbed by the commission by others of private homosexual acts, this cannot on its own warrant the application of penal sanctions when it is consenting adults alone who are involved.’ Consequently, the Court ruled that the restriction on the applicant’s Article 8 right was ‘disproportionate to the aims sought to be achieved.’ The Court concluded that there was a breach of the applicant’s Article 8 right to privacy.
The applicant also alleged that his Article 14 right to non-discrimination had been breached due to the fact that in Northern Ireland male homosexual acts were criminalised, and in contrast heterosexual and female homosexual acts were not. The Court did not deem it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well.
Download the judgment