## Facts

- Northern Ireland criminalized consensual sexual acts between adult men in private under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.
- Comparable conduct had been decriminalized earlier in England and Wales (1967) and Scotland (1980), but not in Northern Ireland.
- In 1976, police searched Jeffrey Dudgeon’s home under a drugs warrant, seized personal papers referring to homosexual activity, and interrogated him about his sexual life.
- A prosecution file was submitted for possible “gross indecency,” but the Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute on public-interest grounds.
- Dudgeon alleged that the continued existence and realistic enforceability of the laws caused ongoing fear and distress, interfered with his private life, and exposed him to risks such as harassment and blackmail.
- After proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights, the case was referred to the European Court of Human Rights for determination.

## Issues

1. Whether maintaining criminal laws penalizing consensual homosexual acts between adult males in private constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. If so, whether the interference is justified under Article 8(2) as “necessary in a democratic society” to protect public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.
3. Whether the legal regime also violates Article 14 (non-discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8.

## Decision

- The court held that the Northern Ireland laws constituted a continuing interference with Dudgeon’s “private life” under Article 8(1), even without an actual prosecution.
- The court accepted the interference was “in accordance with the law” and pursued legitimate aims, including protection of morals and protection of others (including young people).
- The court held the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” under Article 8(2) because it was disproportionate and not supported by a pressing social need.
- The court emphasized that moral disapproval or public offense, standing alone, cannot justify penal sanctions for private sexual conduct between consenting adults.
- The court found a violation of Article 8 and declined to decide the Article 14 claim as unnecessary to the outcome.
- There were dissents favoring a broader margin of appreciation for moral regulation.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal prohibitions targeting private, consensual adult sexual conduct can interfere with “private life” under Article 8 even absent prosecution, where a real threat of enforcement affects conduct and psychological integrity.
- Under Article 8(2), an interference must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society; necessity requires a pressing social need and proportionality.
- States have a margin of appreciation in matters of morals, but it is subject to supervision and may be limited where regulation reaches a most intimate area of private life.
- Public moral disapproval, shock, or offense does not by itself justify penal sanctions against consenting adults engaging in private sexual activity.
- Overbroad criminalization that sweeps in all private consensual adult conduct, rather than targeting coercion, abuse, or protection of minors, is likely disproportionate.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Northern Ireland’s broad 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 therefore did not reach a separate decision on Article 14.


Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7525/76 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 22, 1981)