Information Note on the Court’s case-law 28

March 2001

Sutherland v. the United Kingdom [GC] - 25186/94

Judgment 27.3.2001 [GC]

Article 14

Discrimination

Difference in age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts: struck out

(extract from press release)

Euan Sutherland, a British national, born in 1977 and resident in London, complained that fixing the minimum age for lawful sexual activities between men in the United Kingdom at 18, rather than 16 (the age limit between women), violated his right to respect for his private life guaranteed under Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also relied on A rticle 14 (freedom from discrimination).  Mr Sutherland had become aware, at about the age of 12, that he was sexually attracted to boys. When he was 14 he had tried going out with a girl, but the experience had confirmed for him that he could only find a fulfilling relationship with another man. He had had his first homosexual encounter when he was 16, with another person of his age who also was homosexual. They had sexual relations but were both worried about the fact that under the law, as applicable at the time, it was a criminal offence.  In 1990, 455 prosecutions had given rise to 342 convictions and, in 1991, 213 prosecutions gave rise to 169 convictions. The applicant was never prosecuted. Following the European Commission of Human Right’s report of 1 July 1997, concluding that the applicant was the victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14, the United Kingdom Government proposed in June 1998 a Crime and Disorder Bill to Parliament for a reduction of th e age of consent for homosexual acts between men from 18 to 16. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, equalising the age of consent for homosexual acts between consenting males to 16, came into force on 8 January 2001.  After the entry into force of t his act, the European Court of Human Rights received a request from both parties to strike out the case, together with confirmation that the Government had reimbursed the applicant’s legal costs. In the light of this information, and noting that the new pr ovisions removed the risk or threat of prosecution which had prompted the application, the Court has struck out the case.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes