PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission“) on 11 December 1995, within the three‑month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in three applications (nos. 21627/93, 21826/93 and 21974/93) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) on 14 December 1992 by three British nationals, Mr Colin Laskey, Mr Roland Jaggard and Mr Anthony Brown. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the late Mr Laskey’s father and the two other applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who would represent them (Rule 30).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 8 February 1996, in the presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal, drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr C. Russo, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha, Mr L. Wildhaber, Mr P. Kuris and Mr E. Levits (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43).

As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Bernhardt, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the United Kingdom Government (“the Government“), the applicants’ lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant to the orders made in consequence, the Registrar received the Government’s and the applicants’ memorials on 2 and 15 July 1996 respectively.

On 17 July 1996, the President granted leave to Rights International, a New York-based non-governmental human rights organisation, to submit written comments on specified aspects of the case (Rule 37 para. 2). The comments were received on 16 August 1996.

In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 21 October 1996. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr I. Christie, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr D. Pannick QC, Mr M. Shaw, Counsel, Mr S. Bramley, Ms B. Moxon, Advisers; (b) for the Commission Mr G. Ress, Delegate; (c) for the applicants Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Ms A. Worrall QC, Counsel, Mr D. Jonas, Mr A. Hamilton, Mr I. Geffen, Solicitors, Mr J. Wadham, Adviser. The Court heard addresses by Mr Ress, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Ms Worrall and Mr Pannick.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

Mr Laskey, Mr Jaggard and Mr Brown, all British citizens, were born in 1943, 1947 and 1935 respectively. Mr Laskey died on 14 May 1996.

In 1987, in the course of routine investigations into other matters, the police came into possession of a number of video films which were made during sado-masochistic encounters involving the applicants and as many as forty-four other homosexual men. As a result the applicants, with several other men, were charged with a series of offences, including assault and wounding, relating to sado-masochistic activities that had taken place over a ten-year period. One of the charges involved a defendant who was not yet 21 years old - the age of consent to male homosexual practices at the time. Although the instances of assault were very numerous, the prosecution limited the counts to a small number of exemplary charges. The acts consisted in the main of maltreatment of the genitalia (with, for example, hot wax, sandpaper, fish hooks and needles) and ritualistic beatings either with the assailant’s bare hands or a variety of implements, including stinging nettles, spiked belts and a cat-o’-nine tails. There were instances of branding and infliction of injuries which resulted in the flow of blood and which left scarring. These activities were consensual and were conducted in private for no apparent purpose other than the achievement of sexual gratification. The infliction of pain was subject to certain rules including the provision of a code word to be used by any “victim“ to stop an “assault“, and did not lead to any instances of infection, permanent injury or the need for medical attention.

The activities took place at a number of locations, including rooms equipped as torture chambers. Video cameras were used to record events and the tapes copied and distributed amongst members of the group. The prosecution was largely based on the contents of those videotapes. There was no suggestion that the tapes had been sold or used other than by members of the group.

The applicants pleaded guilty to the assault charges after the trial judge ruled that they could not rely on the consent of the “victims“ as an answer to the prosecution case.

On 19 December 1990, the defendants were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. On passing sentence, the trial judge commented: “... the unlawful conduct now before the court would be dealt with equally in the prosecution of heterosexuals or bisexuals if carried out by them. The homosexuality of the defendants is only the background against which the case must be viewed.“ Mr Laskey was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and six months. This included a sentence of four years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting keeping a disorderly house (see paragraph 31 below) and a consecutive term of six months’ imprisonment for possession of an indecent photograph of a child. Under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (“the 1861 Act“ - see paragraph 27 below), Mr Laskey also received concurrent sentences of twelve months’ imprisonment in respect of various counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and aiding and abetting assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Mr Jaggard was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. He received two years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting unlawful wounding - contrary to section 20 of the 1861 Act (see paragraph 25 below) -, and a further twelve months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, aiding and abetting the same offence, and unlawful wounding.

Mr Brown was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and nine months. He received twelve months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting assault occasioning actual bodily harm, a further nine months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and a further twelve months’ imprisonment for further assaults occasioning actual bodily harm.

The applicants appealed against conviction and sentence.

On 19 February 1992, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeals against conviction. Since, however, the court found that the applicants did not appreciate that their actions in inflicting injuries were criminal, reduced sentences were imposed.

Mr Laskey’s sentence was thus reduced to eighteen months’ imprisonment as regards the charge of aiding and abetting keeping a disorderly house. This sentence was to run concurrently with another three months’ sentence in respect of the various counts of assault and consecutively with six months’ imprisonment for the possession of an indecent photograph of a child, totalling two years’ imprisonment.

Mr Jaggard’s and Mr Brown’s sentences were reduced to six months’ and three months’ imprisonment respectively.

The applicants appealed to the House of Lords on the following certified point of law of public importance: “Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A’s guilt under section 20 or section 47 of the 1861 Act?“

On 11 March 1993, the appeal, known as the case of R. v. Brown ([1993] 2 All England Law Reports 75), was dismissed by a majority of the House of Lords, two of the five law lords dissenting.

Lord Templeman, in the majority, held after reviewing the case-law that: “... the authorities dealing with the intentional infliction of bodily harm do not establish that consent is a defence to a charge under the Act of 1861. They establish that consent is a defence to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of some lawful activities. The question is whether the defence should be extended to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of sado-masochistic encounters ... Counsel for the appellants argued that consent should provide a defence ... because it was said every person has a right to deal with his own body as he chooses. I do not consider that this slogan provides a sufficient guide to the policy decision which must now be taken. It is an offence for a person to abuse his own body and mind by taking drugs. Although the law is often broken, the criminal law restrains a practice which is regarded as dangerous and injurious to individuals and which if allowed and extended is harmful to society generally. In any event the appellants in this case did not mutilate their own bodies. They inflicted harm on willing victims ... In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sado-masochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sado-masochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty ... Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised.“

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle found that: “In my view the line falls properly to be drawn between assault at common law and the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm created by section 47 of the 1861 Act, with the result that consent of the victim is no answer to anyone charged with the latter offence ... unless the circumstances fall within one of the well known exceptions such as organised sporting contests or games, parental chastisement or reasonable surgery ... the infliction of actual or more serious bodily harm is an unlawful activity to which consent is no answer. ... Notwithstanding the views which I have come to, I think it right to say something about the submissions that consent to the activity of the appellants would not be injurious to the public interest. Considerable emphasis was placed by the appellants on the well-ordered and secret manner in which their activities were conducted and upon the fact that these activities had resulted in no injuries which required medical attention. There was, it was said, no question of proselytising by the appellants. This latter submission sits ill with the following passage in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice: ‘They [Laskey and Cadman] recruited new participants; they jointly organised proceedings at the house where much of this activity took place; where much of the pain inflicting equipment was stored. Cadman was a voyeur rather than a sado-masochist, but both he and Laskey through their operations at the Horwich premises were responsible in part for the corruption of a youth “K“ who is now it seems settled into a normal heterosexual relationship.’ Be that as it may, in considering the public interest it would be wrong to look only at the activities of the appellants alone, there being no suggestion that they and their associates are the only practitioners of homosexual sado-masochism in England and Wales. This House must therefore consider the possibility that these activities are practised by others and by others who are not so controlled or responsible as the appellants are claiming to be. Without going into details of all the rather curious activities in which the appellants engaged it would appear to be good luck rather than good judgment which has prevented serious injury from occurring. Wounds can easily become septic if not properly treated, the free flow of blood from a person who is HIV-positive or who has AIDS can infect another and an inflicter who is carried away by sexual excitement or by drink or drugs could very easily inflict pain and injury beyond the level to which the receiver had consented. Your Lordships have no information as to whether such situations have occurred in relation to other sado‑masochistic practitioners. It was no doubt these dangers which caused Lady Mallalieu to restrict her propositions in relation to the public interest to the actual rather than the potential result of the activity. In my view such a restriction is quite unjustified. When considering the public interest potential for harm is just as relevant as actual harm. As Mathew J. said in Coney 8 Queen’s Bench 534, 547: ‘There is however abundant authority for saying that no consent can render that innocent which is in fact dangerous.’ Furthermore, the possibility of proselytisation and corruption of young men is a real danger even in the case of these appellants and the taking of video recordings of such activities suggests that secrecy may not be as strict as the appellants claimed to your Lordships.“

Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley dissented. The first considered that the case should not be treated as falling within the criminal law of violence but rather within the criminal law of private sexual relations. He gave weight to the arguments of the appellants concerning Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8), finding that the decisions of the European authorities clearly favoured the right of the appellants to conduct their private life undisturbed by the criminal law. He considered after an examination of the relevant case-law that it was appropriate for the House of Lords to tackle afresh the question whether public interest required penalising the infliction of this degree of harm in private on a consenting recipient, where the purpose was not profit but gratification of sexual desire. He found no convincing argument on grounds of health (alleged risk of infections or spread of AIDS), the alleged risk of the activities getting out of hand or any possible risk of corruption of youth which might require the offences under the 1861 Act to be interpreted as applying to this conduct.

Lord Slynn of Hadley found that as the law stood adults were able to consent to acts done in private which did not result in serious bodily harm. He agreed that it was in the end a matter of policy in an area where social and moral factors were extremely important and where attitudes could change. It was however for the legislature to decide whether such conduct should be brought within the criminal law and not for the courts in the interests of “paternalism“ to introduce into existing statutory crimes relating to offences against the person concepts which did not properly fit there.

The proceedings were given widespread press coverage. All the applicants lost their jobs and Mr Jaggard required extensive psychiatric treatment.