Talk:Sutherland v. United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
[edit] Temporary copy of text during copyedit
Report of the European Commission of Human Rights (report of 1 July 1997): violation of Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14. (14 votes to 4)
On the basis of its reasoning in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom and Norris v. Ireland the Commission accepted that the applicant had been a victim within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights: the maintenance in force of the impugned legislation constituted an interference with his right to respect for private life (until he attained the age of 18) The issue examined under A8 in conjunction with A14 was whether there had been a discrimination based on sexual orientation? (included in the concept of sex – see HRC Toonen v. Australia) In the case two differences had been made. First, there had been a difference in treatment of homosexual and heterosexual; second, between male homosexuals and lesbian relationships. The first element of the test, the legitimate aim of the different treatment was not contested before the Court. Second, the Commission also required proportionality between the measures applied and the aims sought to be realized, with due regard to the margin of appreciation (it does not matter whether the difference in treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals is based on “sex” or “other status” , given that it impinges on a most intimate aspect of affected individual’s private lives, the margin of appreciation must be relatively narrow). The Commission departed from its ealier case X. v. United Kingdom as the social and medical changes do not support the different age of consent anymore. The society’s claimed entitlement to indicate disapproval of homosexual conduct and its preference to heterosexual lifestyle could not constitute an objective or reasonable justification for inequality of treatment.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights: strikes the case out of the list: the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 had received the Royal Assent.
