A Briton has appealed to the European court of human rights to overturn his
conviction for engaging in sex acts with consenting homosexuals in the privacy of his
bedroom, arguing that the legislation was "homophobic". The man, a local
government officer, was convicted of gross indecency three years ago after police raided
his home and found videotapes of him engaging in oral sex and mutual masturbation in the
presence of up to four other men.
His barrister, Ben Emmerson, told the court in Strasbourg that the prosecution was
an
unjustifiable intrusion into his private life under a British law that
openly
discriminates against homosexual men. Emmerson told the panel of judges:
This was
a classic case of harmless sexual activity between fully consenting adults in private. The
only reason why the applicant had to go through this ordeal is because he is a male
homosexual. He argued that the legislation used retained the hallmarks of
homophobic prejudice" since, while gay men could be convicted of gross indecency, no
such offence existed for either lesbians or heterosexuals.
Following a police search of his home in April 1996, the man was arrested and taken to
a police station where he admitted that videos seized during the search contained footage
of himself and up to four adult men engaging in sexual acts in his bedroom. He was
convicted of gross indecency in November 1996 and given a two-year conditional discharge.
His appeal to the European court was lodged in 1997. All the men involved were consenting
adults over the age of homosexual consent, the court heard, and there was no intention to
distribute or sell the video tapes, which were for private viewing by the man and two
close homosexual friends. The man, who had kept his sexuality private from family and work
colleagues until it was publicly exposed in court, is also claiming compensation for the
distress caused to him by the prosecution and for the £8,500 of video equipment ordered
to be destroyed.
The offence of gross indecency was introduced in 1885 and can be committed only by a
man engaged in sexual activity with another man, even if both are consenting adults above
the age of consent, presently 18 but due to be reduced to 16 next year. There is no
equivalent offence for lesbians or for consenting heterosexuals above the legal age of
consent. In 1967, the sexual offences act excluded consenting homosexual acts in private,
defining "private" as meaning that no more than two men are present.
Emmerson argued that the prosecution breached the man's right to privacy guaranteed by
article 8 of the European rights convention and unlawfully discriminated against him as a
homosexual man, under article 14. Emmerson told the court: There was no element of
sadomasochism. No one was at risk of injury of any kind. There were no vulnerable or
underage individuals involved.
The government defended the conviction. Their barrister told the court that there was
no breach of privacy because the sex acts in question took place in full view of other men
and were video-taped, which posed the risk that others might see the tape. Viewing the
tape could cause offence and corrupt vulnerable young men.
(The only
people who are open to corruption seem to be our very own Government. It is simply
obnoxious they they should defend this outrageous abuse of law)
The European court is expected to give its decision in the new year.
