CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 février 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law February 1997 Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom - 21627/93, 21826/93 and 21974/93 Judgment 19.2.1997 Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Prosecution and conviction for sado-masochistic practices: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] Common ground before Court: criminal proceedings against applicants constituted "interference by a public authority" with right to respect for private life, carried out "in accordance with the law" and in pursuance of legitimate aim ("protection of health or morals").   Only issue: whether interference "necessary in a democratic society". State unquestionably entitled to regulate through criminal law the infliction of physical harm - determination of tolerable level of harm where victim consents   primarily a matter for State concerned. Court not persuaded that applicants' behaviour belonged to private morality and was excluded from State's intervention - evident from facts that activities involved significant degree of injury and wounding - State authorities were entitled to consider not only actual but also potential harm inherent in activities. No evidence to support allegation of authorities' bias against homosexuals - majority in House of Lords based decision on extreme nature of practices. Accordingly, reasons given by national authorities for interference are relevant and sufficient. Given degree of organisation, limited number of charges selected for prosecution and reduced sentences imposed on appeal, interference not disproportionate. National authorities entitled to consider interference "necessary in a democratic society" for protection of health. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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