Information Note on the Court’s case-law 20

July 2000

A.D.T. v. the United Kingdom - 35765/97

Judgment 31.7.2000 [Section III]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Conviction for gross indecency involving several men in private: violation

Facts : Police officers carried out searches at the home of the applicant, a practising homosexual, and seized various items, including photographs and videos. The appl icant was arrested and admitted that the videos contained footage of him and up to four other adult men engaging in oral sex and mutual masturbation in his home. He was charged with gross indecency under S. 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (the decrimina lisation of sexual acts between consenting adult males in private not applying when there are more than two men). He was duly convicted and conditionally discharged for two years. Confiscation and destruction of the material was ordered.

Law : Article 8 – T he applicant was aware that his conduct was in breach of the criminal law and was therefore continuously and directly affected by it, and he was also directly affected in that he was prosecuted and convicted. There is no evidence to indicate any actual lik elihood of the videos being made public, either deliberately or inadvertently, and it is unlikely that the applicant would knowingly be involved in making them public, since he had gone to some lengths to conceal his sexual orientation. He was thus the vic tim of an interference with regard both to the legislation and to the conviction. The case differs from previous cases dealt with by the Court in that the activities involved more than two men and the applicant was convicted because more than two were pres ent. While at some point sexual activities can be carried out in such a manner that State interference may be justified, the facts of the case do not indicate such circumstances: the applicant was involved in activities with a restricted number of friends in circumstances where it was most unlikely that others would become aware of what was going on, and although the acts were recorded, the applicant was not prosecuted for that or the risk that the videos might become public but for the acts themselves. The activities were therefore genuinely private. Given the narrow margin of appreciation in that respect, the absence of any public health considerations and the purely private nature of the behaviour, the reasons submitted for the maintenance in force of leg islation criminalising homosexual acts between men in private, and a fortiori the applicant’s prosecution and conviction, are not sufficient.

Conclusion : violation (unanimous).

Article 14+8: The Court considered it unnecessary to examine this complaint.

Co nclusion : not necessary to examine (unanimous).

Article  41 – The Court awarded £20,929.05 (GBP) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs.

© 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