## Facts

- Northern Ireland criminal law prohibited certain consensual male homosexual acts under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, despite decriminalization elsewhere in Great Britain.
- Jeffrey Dudgeon, a Belfast resident, alleged that the continued existence of these offences restricted his private life and exposed him to fear of harassment and blackmail.
- Police searched Dudgeon’s home under a drug warrant, seized diaries and correspondence describing homosexual activity, and questioned him for approximately four and a half hours about his sexual life.
- Police sent a file to prosecuting authorities considering a gross indecency charge, but prosecution was declined as not in the public interest.
- Dudgeon filed a complaint alleging unjustified interference with private life under Article 8 and discrimination under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8.

## Issues

1. Whether the existence and potential enforcement of Northern Ireland criminal offences covering consensual homosexual acts between adult men in private constituted an “interference” with private life under Article 8(1).
2. If there was an interference, whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” under Article 8(2) to protect morals and/or the rights and freedoms of others, including the protection of young persons.
3. Whether the differential treatment of male homosexual conduct and the retention of criminalization in Northern Ireland, unlike other UK jurisdictions, violated Article 14 taken with Article 8.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8.
- The Court held that the continuing existence of the offences, together with a real risk of investigation and prosecution, seriously interfered with Dudgeon’s private life.
- Although protecting morals and others’ rights (including youth protection) could be legitimate aims, imposing criminal sanctions on private, consensual adult conduct was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society.
- Having found an Article 8 violation, the Court made no separate determination of a distinct violation under Article 14.

## Legal Principles

- “Private life” under Article 8 includes intimate sexual conduct between consenting adults in private.
- Criminal prohibitions can constitute a present interference with private life even if enforcement is infrequent, where the person faces a real and continuing risk of investigation or prosecution.
- Under Article 8(2), criminal sanctions are a severe form of interference and require strong justification; public moral disapproval alone cannot justify penalizing private consensual adult sexual conduct.
- Proportionality is central to the “necessary in a democratic society” inquiry; blanket criminalization of private consensual adult homosexual acts exceeds what is required to protect morals or others’ rights.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that Northern Ireland’s criminalization of private, consensual homosexual acts between adult men violated Article 8 because the interference with private life was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, and it declined to issue an additional Article 14 finding after resolving the case on Article 8 grounds.


Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7525/76 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1981)