0

I have been watching a Supreme Court hearing, and there are certain things that I don't understand. I have also not been able to find what these things mean on the internet. I will ask them as separate question.

The supreme court hearing is: https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2020-0133/150621-am.html

My question is that at approximately 24min, Article 8 is discussed. As I have read, Article 8 is about the right to live a private life. I don't see the connection of Article 8 and consent of 2 people in a sexual act.

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

I cannot view the video on my device but...

Causing, inciting or engaging etc in sexual activity with a person who has a mental disorder that impedes their choice - and therefore lacks the ability to give free and unfettered consent - are offences under s.30 to s.33 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

However, this has to be balanced against their Article 8 rights for respect for their private and family life, especially if they are in a long term and loving relationship. This balance may inform the police, prosecutors and courts as to whether any prosection for any of these offences would be in the public interest or not.

Improve this answer
2
  • This video is the other way round i.e. the mental person is the one they are considering to restict rights for. The video is based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, where the speaker does not talk about the any physical action the mental person will in theory do like, inciting or sexual activity but just the consent. It is largly based on section 2 and 3 of the act.
    – Asan Ramzan
    Aug 5, 2021 at 11:46
  • Case summary here: supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0133.html
    – richardb
    Aug 5, 2021 at 14:34
0

I'm not sure where your confusion comes from. Private life in normal usage includes sex life.

151 The Court has held that elements such as gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article 8

Prohibiting unsupervised contact with women no doubt infringes on that right. The question is whether that limitation is necessary and proportionate.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .