Smith and Grady v United Kingdom

Last updated

Smith and Grady v UK
Court European Court of Human Rights
Decided27 September 1999
Citation(s)
  • (1999) 29 EHRR 493
  • [1999] ECHR 72
  • [1999] IRLR 734
  • (1999) 11 Admin LR 879
Case history
Prior action(s)R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996] QB 517
Keywords
Right to A Private Life, Homosexuality in the Military

Smith and Grady v UK (1999) 29 EHRR 493 was a notable decision of the European Court of Human Rights that unanimously found that the investigation into and subsequent discharge of personnel from HM Forces on the basis they were homosexual was a breach of their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision, which caused widespread controversy at the time [1] led the UK to adopt a revised sexual-orientation-free Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct in January 2000. [2] In UK law the decision is notable because the applicants' case had previously been dismissed in both the High Court and Court of Appeal, who had found that the authorities' actions had not violated the principles of legality including Wednesbury unreasonableness, [3] thus highlighting the difference in approach of the European Court of Human Rights and the domestic courts.

Contents

Facts

Smith had been a member of the Royal Air Force since 1989. In June 1994 a woman telephoned the air force alleging that Smith was a lesbian and had been sexually harassing the caller. Smith was questioned by the service police and admitted that she was gay and that she had a same-sex relationship while in the RAF. The service police asked her intimate questions on the details of her sexual life, asking for the names of previous partners, her HIV status and other details. A few months later Smith was given an administrative discharge from the Royal Air Force. [4] Grady had been a member of the Armed forces since 1980 but was discharged following disclosures of a nanny working for the British Defence Liaison Service. [4] The applicants sought to challenge their discharges first through a domestic judicial review, and when this was unsuccessful they launched an application to the European Court of Human Rights.[ citation needed ]

Judgment

The British government conceded that there had been an interference with the applicants' right to a private life under article 8 of the European Convention. The issue for the court was therefore whether such an interference could be justified. In order for an interference under article 8 to be justified it is necessary that it is in accordance with the law, in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, and must be considered necessary in a democratic society. The government policy had been given both statutory recognition and recognition by the lower courts and the court considered that the policy could be said to be in the pursuit of the legitimate aim interests of national security" and "the prevention of disorder". However, the court was not satisfied that the policy could be considered "necessary in a democratic society". The court was not satisfied that the government had provided credible justification for its treatment of homosexual personnel. Observing that: [5]

”these attitudes, even if sincerely felt by those who expressed them, ranged from stereotypical expressions of hostility to those of homosexual orientation, to vague expressions of unease about the presence of homosexual colleagues. To the extent that they represent a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority, these negative attitudes cannot, of themselves, be considered by the Court to amount to sufficient justification for the interferences with the applicants' rights outlined above any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a different race, origin or colour".

The court considered that the government had not offered convincing and weighty reasons for the investigation of the applicants sexual orientation or their subsequent discharge and therefore considered that there had been a breach of their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention. [6]

Mowbray has suggested that the court may have been influenced in its decision by the doubts expressed by some of the Obiter dicta of the domestic proceedings which expressed doubts about the durability of the armed forces policy towards homosexuals. [7]

Significance

The decision was initially controversial, [1] with gay rights advocates arguing that it represented a breakthrough but some politicians and commentators expressing concerns that the decision would disrupt Armed Forces morale. Today, such fears are widely regarded as having been proven unfounded. The Ministry of Defence has concluded that the policy had "been hailed as a solid achievement" and that "there has been no perceived effect on morale, unit cohesion or operational effectiveness".

The decision has come to be widely accepted both within the military and outside it with Wing Commander Phil Sagar of the armed forces' joint equality and diversity training centre issuing a formal apology on behalf of the Ministry of Defence in 2007 to those affected by the MOD's former policy. [8] The current attitude of the Armed Forces was demonstrated in October 2008 when the outgoing head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt told delegates at a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender conference that "respect for others is not an optional extra" [9] and in July 2009 diversity within the armed services was actively celebrated with the first openly gay serviceman featured on the front cover of the armed forces' Soldier magazine. [10] In 2015 following the fifteenth anniversary of the lifting of the gay ban the Ministry of Defence announced changes to its equal opportunities policy which allowed new recruits to disclose their sexuality. [11]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 "Delight and despair at gay ban ruling". BBC. 27 September 1999. Retrieved 28 December 2009.
  2. ↑ Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct, retrieved 28 December 2009.
  3. ↑ Mowbray, Alasdair (2007). Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights . Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-920674-2.
  4. 1 2 Mowbray 2007, p. 489.
  5. ↑ Smith and Grady v UK, Para 97(European Court of Human Rights). Text
  6. ↑ Smith and Grady v UK, Para 111(European Court of Human Rights). Text
  7. ↑ Mowbray 2007, p. 495.
  8. ↑ Attewill, Fred (28 June 2007), "Defence ministry apologises for gay discrimination", The Guardian , retrieved 28 December 2009
  9. ↑ Rayment, Sean (11 October 2008), "Army's top general makes history by addressing conference on homosexuality", The Daily Telegraph , retrieved 28 December 2009
  10. ↑ Simpson, Aislinn (27 July 2009), "Armed Forces celebrates diversity with gay serviceman in Soldier magazine", The Daily Telegraph , retrieved 28 December 2009
  11. ↑ "The UK's ban on gays in the military was lifted 15 years ago today – PinkNews · PinkNews". pinknews.co.uk. 12 January 2015. Retrieved 2 June 2019.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don't ask, don't tell</span> Former policy on gay people serving in the US military

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on military service of non-heterosexual people, instituted during the Clinton administration. The policy was issued under Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 on December 21, 1993, and was in effect from February 28, 1994, until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by Public Law 103–160, which was signed November 30, 1993. The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability".

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel are able to serve in the armed forces of some countries around the world: the vast majority of industrialized, Western countries including some South American countries such as Argentina and Chile in addition to South Africa, and Israel. The rights concerning intersex people are more vague.

Dudgeon v the United Kingdom (1981) was a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case, which held that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 which criminalised male homosexual acts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was significant

  1. as the first successful case before the ECtHR on the criminalisation of male homosexuality
  2. as the case which led to legislation in 1982 bringing the law on male homosexuality in Northern Ireland into line with that in Scotland and in England and Wales ;
  3. as a lead-in to Norris v. Ireland, a later case before the ECtHR argued by Mary Robinson, which challenged the continued application of the same 1885 law in the Republic of Ireland; and,
  4. for setting the legal precedent that ultimately resulted in the Council of Europe requiring that no member state could criminalise male or female homosexual behaviour.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland</span>

Attitudes in Ireland towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are among the most liberal in the world. Ireland is notable for its transformation from a country holding overwhelmingly conservative attitudes toward LGBT issues, in part due to the opposition by the Roman Catholic Church, to one holding overwhelmingly liberal views in the space of a generation. In May 2015, Ireland became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote. The New York Times declared that the result put Ireland at the "vanguard of social change". Since July 2015, transgender people in Ireland can self-declare their gender for the purpose of updating passports, driving licences, obtaining new birth certificates, and getting married. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity have been legal in the state since 1993. Government recognition of LGBT rights in Ireland has expanded greatly over the past two decades. Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1993, and most forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation are now outlawed. Ireland also forbids incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the United Kingdom</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have varied over time. Today, LGB rights are considered to be advanced by international standards. However, the country has developed an increasingly negative reputation regarding the status of transgender rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Romania</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Romania face legal challenges and discrimination not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Attitudes in Romania are generally conservative, with regards to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens. In the past two decades, it fully decriminalised lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, introduced and enforced wide-ranging discrimination laws, equalised the age of consent and introduced laws against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. Furthermore, LGBT communities have become more visible in recent years, as a result of events such as Bucharest's annual pride parade and Cluj-Napoca's Gay Film Nights festival.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Cyprus</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Cyprus face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Cyprus since 1998, and civil unions which grant several of the rights and benefits of marriage have been legal since December 2015. Conversion therapy was banned in Cyprus in May 2023.

<i>Holmes v. California National Guard</i>

Andrew Holmes v. California National Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 was a federal court case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that upheld the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that restricted service by gays and lesbians in the California National Guard of the United States. The court decided that a member of the National Guard could not be discharged for saying publicly that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, but could be restricted to assignments that did not require recognition by the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Peru</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Peru face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity among consenting adults is legal. However, households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

Lustig-Prean and Beckett v United Kingdom (2000) 29 ECHR 548 is a UK labour law and European Convention on Human Rights case on sexual orientation discrimination. The European Court of Human Rights combined judgments for Beckett and Lustig-Prean, and the parallel decisions for Smith and Grady, are regarded as pivotal in gay rights throughout the UK and Europe.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10450 on April 27, 1953. Effective May 27, 1953, it revoked President Truman's Executive Order 9835 of 1947, and dismantled its Loyalty Review Board program. Instead, it charged the heads of federal agencies and the Civil Service Commission, supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), with the task of investigating federal employees to determine whether they posed security risks. It expanded the definitions and conditions used to make such determinations. The order contributed to the ongoing Lavender scare of the mid-1950s, barring thousands of lesbian and gay applicants from government jobs.

The United States military formerly excluded gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians from service. In 1993, the United States Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, a law instituting the policy commonly referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), which allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to serve as long as they did not reveal their sexual orientation. Although there were isolated instances in which service personnel were met with limited success through lawsuits, efforts to end the ban on openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people serving either legislatively or through the courts initially proved unsuccessful.

<i>Alekseyev v. Russia</i>

Alekseyev v. Russia is a case before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the prohibition of the 2006, 2007 and 2008 Moscow Pride gay rights marches in Russia's capital. The case was brought by Russian LGBT activist Nikolay Alexeyev, organiser of the marches, who claimed the banning of the marches had violated Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He claimed furthermore that he had not received an effective remedy under Article 13 against the violation of Article 11, and that he had been discriminated against by the authorities in Moscow under Article 14 in their consideration of his applications to hold the marches.

Gay and lesbian citizens have been allowed to serve openly in His Majesty's Armed Forces since 2000. The United Kingdom's policy is to allow lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) personnel to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden. It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to come out. All personnel are subject to the same rules against sexual harassment, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Australian military</span>

Sexual orientation and gender identity in the Australian military are not considered disqualifying matters in the 21st century, with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) allowing LGBT people to serve openly and access the same entitlements as other personnel. The ban on gay and lesbian personnel was lifted by the Keating government in 1992, with a 2000 study finding no discernible negative impacts on troop morale. In 2009, the First Rudd government introduced equal entitlements to military retirement pensions and superannuation for the domestic partners of LGBTI personnel. Since 2010, transgender personnel may serve openly and may undergo gender transition with ADF support while continuing their military service. LGBTI personnel are also supported by the charity DEFGLIS, the Defence Force Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex Information Service.

X and Others v. Austria, Application No. 19010/07, was a human rights case that was decided in 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The case concerned whether the Government of Austria had discriminated against Austrian citizens who were in same-sex relationships because the wording of the Austrian Civil Code did not permit unmarried same-sex couples access to legally granted second-parent adoptions, whereas it was available to unmarried heterosexual couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender people and military service</span>

Not all armed forces have policies explicitly permitting LGBT personnel. Generally speaking, Western European militaries show a greater tendency toward inclusion of LGBT individuals. As of January 2021, 21 countries allow transgender military personnel to serve openly: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Cuba and Thailand reportedly allowed transgender service in a limited capacity. In 1974, the Netherlands was the first country to allow transgender military personnel. The United States has allowed transgender personnel to serve in the military under varying conditions since President Joe Biden signed an executive order that allowed them to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Craig Jones (Royal Navy officer)</span>

Craig Jones is a former Royal Navy Officer and LGBT rights defender in the UK armed forces. Jones was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire in the 2006 New Years Honours List for services to Equality and Human Rights in the Armed Forces.

This overview shows the regulations regarding military service of non-heterosexuals around the world.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.