CASE OF SMITH AND GRADY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 8;No separate issue under Art. 14+8;No violation of Art. 3 or 14+3;Not necessary to examine Art. 10 or 14+10;Violation of Art. 13;Just satisfaction reserved

On DATE PERSON ( the first applicant ) joined ORG to serve a DATE engagement ( which could be extended ) as an enrolled nurse . She subsequently obtained the rank of senior aircraft woman . DATE she was recommended for promotion . A promotion was dependent on her becoming a staff nurse and in DATE she was accepted for the relevant conversion course . Her final exams were to take place in DATE .

On DATE the applicant found a message on her answering machine from an unidentified female caller . The caller stated that she had informed the air force authorities of the applicant ’s homosexuality . On DATE the applicant did not report , as required , for duty . On DATE a woman telephoned the air force ORG ( “ the service police ” ) stating , inter alia , that the applicant was homosexual and was sexually harassing the caller .

On DATE the applicant reported for duty . She was called to a pre - disciplinary interview because of her absence without leave . In explaining why she did not report for duty , she referred to the anonymous telephone message and admitted that she was homosexual . She also confirmed that she had a previous and current homosexual relationship . Both relationships were with civilians and the current relationship had begun DATE previously . The assistance of the service police was requested , a unit investigation report was opened and an investigator from the service police was appointed .

The applicant was interviewed on DATE by that investigator and another officer ( female ) from the service police . The interview lasted TIME . She was cautioned that she did not have to say anything but that anything she did say could be given in evidence . The applicant later confirmed that her solicitor had advised her not to say anything but she agreed that she would answer simple questions but not the “ nitty gritty ” . She was told that she might be asked questions which could embarrass her and that if she felt embarrassed she should say so . It was also explained that the purpose of the questions was to verify that her admission was not an attempt to obtain an early discharge from the service .

The applicant confirmed that , while she had had “ thoughts ” about her sexual orientation for DATE , she had her first lesbian relationship during DATE in the air force . She was asked how she came to realise that she was lesbian , the names of her previous partners ( she refused to give this information ) and whether her previous partners were in the service ( this question was put a number of times ) . She was questioned about how she had met her current partner and the extent of her relationship with that partner but she would not respond at first , at which stage her interviewer queried how else he was to substantiate her homosexuality . The applicant then confirmed that she and her partner had a full sexual relationship .

She was also asked whether she and her partner had a sexual relationship with their foster daughter ( DATE ) . The applicant indicated that she knew the consequences of her homosexuality being discovered and , while she considered herself just as capable of doing the job as another , she had come to terms with what was going to happen to her . The interviewers also wanted to know whether she had taken legal advice , who was her solicitor , what advice he had already given her and what action she proposed to take after the interview . She was also asked whether she had thought about HIV , whether she was being “ careful ” , what she did in her spare time and whether she was into “ girlie games ” like hockey and netball . The applicant agreed that her partner , who was waiting outside during the interview , could be interviewed for “ corroboration ” purposes .

The report prepared by the interviewers dated DATE described the subsequent interview of the applicant ’s partner . The latter confirmed that she and the applicant had been involved in a full sexual relationship for DATE but she declined to elaborate further .

NORP The investigation report was sent to the applicant ’s commanding officer who , on DATE , recommended the applicant ’s administrative discharge . On DATE the applicant received a certificate of discharge from the armed forces . An internal air force document dated DATE described the applicant ’s overall general assessment for trade proficiency and personal qualities as very good and her overall conduct assessments as exemplary .

On DATE Mr PERSON ( the second applicant ) joined ORG at the rank of aircraftman serving as a trainee administrative clerk . By DATE he had achieved the rank of sergeant and worked as a personnel administrator , at which stage he was posted to GPE at ORG ( LOC ) – “ BDILS(NA ) ” . He served as chief clerk and led the BDILS(NA ) support staff team . In DATE the applicant , who was married with CARDINAL children , told his wife that he was homosexual .

The applicant ’s general assessment covering DATE to DATE gave him CARDINAL out of a maximum of MONEY for trade proficiency , supervisory ability and personal qualities . His ability to work well with all rank levels , with NORP and NORP peers and with his senior officer contacts was noted , his commanding officer concluding that the applicant was highly recommended for promotion ( a special recommendation being noted as well within his reach ) and that he was particularly suited for “ PS [ personal assistant]/SDL [ special duties list]/Diplomatic duties ” .

Following disclosures to the wife of the head of the BDILS(NA ) by their nanny , the head of the BDILS(NA ) reported that it was suspected that the applicant was homosexual . A unit investigation report was opened and a service police officer nominated as investigator .

On DATE the applicant ’s security clearance was replaced with a lower security clearance . On CARDINAL DATE he was relieved of his duties by the head of the BDILS(NA ) and was informed that he was being returned to the GPE pending investigation of a problem with his security clearance . On DATE the applicant was brought to his home to pack his belongings and was required to leave GPE for GPE . He was then required to remain at the relevant air force base in GPE .

On DATE the head of the BDILS(NA ) advised CARDINAL service police investigators , who had by then arrived in GPE , that his own wife , their nanny , the applicant ’s wife and another ( female ) employee of the BDILS(NA ) , together with the latter ’s husband , should be interviewed .

The nanny detailed in a statement how , through her own involvement in the homosexual community , she had come to suspect that the applicant was homosexual . The wife of the head of the BDILS(NA ) revealed in interview confidences made to her by the applicant ’s wife about the applicant ’s marriage difficulties and sex life and informed investigators about a cycling holiday taken by the applicant with a male colleague . It was decided by the investigators that her statement would serve no useful purpose . The applicant ’s colleague and the latter ’s husband also spoke of the applicant ’s marriage difficulties , the sleeping arrangements of the applicant and his wife and the applicant ’s cycling holiday with a male colleague . These persons were also asked about the possibility of the applicant having had an extra - marital relationship and of being involved in the homosexual community . The investigators later reported that these friends were clearly loyal to the applicant and not to be believed .

The applicant ’s wife was then interviewed . The case progress report dated CARDINAL DATE describes the interview in detail . It was explained to the applicant ’s wife that the interview related to the applicant ’s security clearance and that her husband had been transferred to GPE at short notice in accordance with standard procedure . She agreed to talk to the investigators and , further to questioning , outlined in some detail their financial position , the course of and the current state of their marriage , their sexual habits and the applicant ’s relationship with his CARDINAL children . She confirmed that her husband ’s sexual tendencies were normal and indicated that her husband had gone on his own on the cycling holiday in question .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lower security clearance was suspended .

On DATE the applicant was required to attend an interview with the same CARDINAL investigators who had returned from GPE . It began at TIME and was conducted under caution with an observer ( also from the air force ) present at the applicant ’s request . The applicant was informed that an allegation had been made regarding his sexual orientation ( the terms “ queen ” and “ out and out bender ” were used ) and it was made clear that the investigators had been to GPE and had spoken to a number of people , CARDINAL or CARDINAL of whom thought he was gay .

The applicant denied he was homosexual . He was asked numerous questions about his work , his relationship with the head of the BDILS(NA ) , his cycling holiday and about his female colleague . He was told that his wife had been interviewed in detail and he was informed from time to time by the interviewers if his answers matched those of his wife . He was asked to tell the interviewers about the break - up of his marriage , whether he had extra - marital affairs , about his and his wife ’s sex life including their having protected sex and about their financial situation . He was also questioned on the cycling holiday , about a male colleague and the latter ’s sexual orientation . They asked the applicant who he was calling since he had returned to GPE and how he was telephoning . He was told that he would be asked to supply his electronic diary which contained names , addresses and telephone numbers and was told that the entries would be verified for homosexual contacts . They informed the applicant that they had a warrant if he did not agree to a search of his accommodation . The applicant agreed to the search . The applicant also requested time to think and to take legal advice . The interview was adjourned at TIME

The applicant then took advice from a solicitor and his accommodation was searched . The interview recommenced at TIME with the applicant ’s solicitor and an observer present . Despite being pressed with numerous questions , the applicant answered “ no comment ” to most of the questions posed . Given the applicant ’s responses , his lawyer was asked what advice had been given to the applicant . The applicant ’s digital diary was taken from him . He was asked whether he realised the security implications of the investigation and that his career was on the line if the allegations against him were proved . CARDINAL of the investigators then asked him :

“ … if you wish to change your mind and want to speak to me , while I ’m still here , before I go back to GPE ; because I ’m going back to GPE . Because I ’m going to see the Colonel DATE , that is the one in GPE , who is then going to see the General and we ’re going to get permission to speak to the NORP … and I shall stay out there , PERSON , until I have spoken to all NORP that you know . Expense is not a problem . ORG is not a problem … ”

The detailed evidence given by his wife to the investigators was put to the applicant , including information about his relationship with his son , his daughter and his mother - in - law , about matters relating to the family home of which the applicant was not aware and about his having protected sex with his wife . The interviewer returned again to the subject of the applicant having previously grown cold towards his wife but now declaring his love for her . The applicant continued to respond “ no comment ” . It was explained to the applicant ’s solicitor that the service attitude in relation to investigations involving acts of alleged homosexuality did not warrant the provision of legal advice and that the applicant ’s solicitor was only delaying matters . The investigators also mentioned that it was a security matter which they would not detail further since his solicitor did not have security clearance , but that the applicant should not be surprised if some counter - intelligence people came to talk to him and that there would be no legal advice for that .

The applicant requested time to speak to his lawyer and the interview was interrupted at TIME The applicant then spoke to his lawyer and asked to think about matters TIME .

The interview recommenced at TIME on DATE with the same investigators and an observer , but the applicant did not require a solicitor . The applicant admitted his homosexuality almost immediately and confirmed that the reason he denied it at first was that he was not clear about the position as regards the retention of certain accumulated benefits on discharge and he was concerned about his family ’s financial position in that eventuality . However , he had since discovered that his discharge would be administrative and that he would get his terminal benefits , so he could be honest .

The applicant was questioned further about a person called “ PERSON , whether his wife knew he was homosexual , whether a male colleague was homosexual and when he had “ come out ” . He was asked whether he was a practising homosexual , but he declined to give the name of his current partner , at which stage it was explained to him that the service had to verify his admission of homosexuality to avoid fraudulent attempts at early discharge . He was then questioned about his first homosexual relationship ( he confirmed that it began in DATE ) , his homosexual partners ( past and present ) , who they were , where they worked , how old they were , how the applicant met them and about the nature of his relationship with them , including the type of sex they had .

During this interview , the personal items taken from the applicant were produced and the applicant was questioned about , inter alia , the contents of his digital diary , a photograph , a torn envelope and a letter from the applicant to his current partner . He was questioned further about when he first realised he was homosexual , who knew about his sexual orientation , his relationship with his wife ( including their sexual relationship ) , what his wife thought about his homosexuality , his HIV status and again about the nature of his sexual relationships with his homosexual partners . The interview terminated at TIME

The investigators prepared a report on DATE . In his certificate of qualifications and reference on discharge dated DATE , the applicant was described as a loyal serviceman and a conscientious and hard worker who could be relied upon to achieve the highest standards . It was also noted that he had displayed sound personal qualities and integrity throughout his service and had enjoyed the respect of his superiors , peers and subordinates alike . The applicant was administratively discharged with effect from DATE .

Along with Mr PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants obtained leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions to discharge them from the armed forces . The applicants argued that the policy of ORG against homosexuals in the armed forces was “ irrational ” , that it was in breach of the LAW and that it was contrary to LAW . ORG maintained that the policy was necessary mainly to maintain morale and unit effectiveness , in view of the loco parentis role of the services as regards minor recruits and in light of the requirement of communal living in the armed forces .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for judicial review , Lord Justice PERSON giving the main judgment of the court . He noted that the cases illustrated the hardships resulting from the absolute policy against homosexuals in the armed forces and that all CARDINAL of the applicants had exemplary service records , some with reports written in glowing terms . Moreover , he found that in none of the cases before him was it suggested that the applicants’ sexual orientation had in any way affected their ability to carry out their work or had any ill - effect on discipline . There was no reason to doubt that , but for their discharge on the sole ground of sexual orientation , they would have continued to perform their service duties entirely efficiently and with the continued support of their colleagues . All were devastated by their discharge .

PERSON reviewed the background to the “ age - old ” policy , the relevance of ORG report of DATE , the position in other armed forces around the world , the arguments of ORG ( noting that the security argument was no longer of substantial concern to the government ) together with the applicants’ arguments against the policy . He considered that the balance of argument clearly lay with the applicants , describing the applicants’ submissions in favour of a conduct - based code as “ powerful ” . In his view , the tide of history was against ORG . He further observed that it was improbable , whatever ORG would say , that the policy could survive for much longer and added , “ I doubt whether most of those present in court throughout the proceedings now believe otherwise . ”

NORP However , having considered arguments as to the test to be applied in the context of these judicial review proceedings , PERSON concluded that the conventional ORG principles , adapted to a human rights context , should be applied .

Accordingly , where fundamental human rights were being restricted , the Minister of Defence needed to show that there was an important competing interest to justify the restriction . The primary decision was for him and the secondary judgment of the court amounted to asking whether a reasonable Minister , on the material before him , could have reasonably made that primary judgment . He later clarified that it was only if the purported justification “ outrageously defies logic or accepted moral standards ” that the court could strike down the Minister ’s decision . He noted that within the limited scope of that review , the court had to be scrupulous to ensure that no recognised ground of challenge was in truth available to an applicant before rejecting the application . When the most fundamental human rights are threatened , the court would not , for example , be inclined to overlook some minor flaw in the decision - making process , or to adopt a particularly benevolent view of the Minister ’s evidence , or to exercise its discretion to withhold relief . However , he emphasised that , even where the most fundamental human rights were being restricted , “ the threshold of unreasonableness is not lowered ” .

It was clear that the Secretary of ORG had cited an important competing public interest . But the central question was whether it was reasonable for the Secretary of ORG to take the view that allowing homosexuals into the forces would imperil that interest . He pointed out that , although he might have considered the Minister wrong ,

“ … [ the courts ] owe a duty ... to remain within their constitutional bounds and not trespass beyond them . Only if it were plain beyond sensible argument that no conceivable damage could be done to the armed services as a fighting unit would it be appropriate for this court now to remove the issue entirely from the hands of both the military and of the government . If the Convention … were part of our law and we were accordingly entitled to ask whether the policy answers a pressing social need and whether the restriction on human rights involved can be shown proportionate to the benefits then clearly the primary judgment … would be for us and not others : the constitutional balance would shift . But that is not the position . In exercising merely a secondary judgment , this court is bound to act with some reticence . Our approach must reflect , not overlook , where responsibility ultimately lies for the defence of the realm and recognise too that ORG is exercising a continuing supervision over this area of prerogative power . ”

Accordingly , while the Minister ’s suggested justification for the ban may have seemed “ unconvincing ” , the Minister ’s stand could not properly be said to be unlawful . It followed that the applications had to be rejected “ albeit with hesitation and regret ” . A brief analysis of the Convention ’s case - law led the judge to comment that he strongly suspected that , as far as GPE obligations were concerned , DATE of the policy were numbered .

Simon Brown LJ also found that the Equal Treatment Directive was not applicable to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and that the domestic courts could not rule on Convention matters . He also observed that GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the GPE permitted homosexuals to serve in their armed forces and that the evidence indicated that the only countries operating a blanket ban were GPE and GPE ( and , possibly , GPE and GPE ) .

In DATE a consultation paper was circulated by ORG to “ management ” levels in the armed forces relating to ORG policy against homosexuals in those forces . The covering letter circulating this paper pointed out that the “ Minister for ORG has decided that evidence is to be gathered within ORG in support of the current policy on homosexuality ” . It was indicated that the case was likely to progress to the NORP courts and that the applicants in the judicial review proceedings had argued that ORG position was “ bereft of factual evidence ” but that this was not surprising since evidence was difficult to amass given that homosexuals were not permitted to serve . Since “ this should not be allowed to weaken the arguments for maintaining the policy ” , the addressees of the letter were invited to comment on the consultation paper and “ to provide any additional evidence in support of the current policy by DATE ” . The consultation paper attached referred , inter alia , to CARDINAL incidents which were considered damaging to unit cohesion . The first involved a homosexual who had had a relationship with a sergeant ’s mess waiter and the other involved an NORP on secondment whose behaviour was described as “ so disruptive ” that his attachment was terminated .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal . The Master of the Rolls , Sir PERSON , delivered the main judgment ( with which the CARDINAL other judges of ORG agreed ) .

As to the court ’s approach to the issue of “ irrationality ” , he considered that the following submission was an accurate distillation of the relevant jurisprudence on the subject :

“ the court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision - maker . But in judging whether the decision - maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important . The more substantial the interference with human rights , the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above . ”

He went on to quote from , inter alia , the judgment of FAC in NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Appeal Cases CARDINAL , where it was pointed out that :

“ the primary judgment as to whether the particular competing public interest justifies the particular restriction imposed falls to be made by the Secretary of ORG to whom ORG has entrusted the discretion . But we are entitled to exercise a secondary judgment by asking whether a reasonable Secretary of ORG , on the material before him , could reasonably make that primary judgment . ”

Moreover , he considered that the greater the policy content of the decision , and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience , the more hesitant the court had to be in holding a decision to be irrational .

Prior to applying this test of irrationality , the Master of the Rolls noted that the case concerned innate qualities of a very personal kind , that the decisions of which the applicants complained had had a profound effect on their careers and prospects and that the applicants’ rights as human beings were very much in issue . While the domestic court was not the primary decision - maker and while it was not the role of the courts to regulate the conditions of service in the armed forces , “ it has the constitutional role and duty of ensuring that the rights of citizens are not abused by the unlawful exercise of executive power . While the court must properly defer to the expertise of responsible decision - makers , it must not shrink from its fundamental duty to ‘ do right to all manner of people’ … ” .

He then reviewed , by reference to the test of irrationality outlined above , the submissions of the parties in favour of and against the policy , commenting that the applicants’ arguments were “ of very considerable cogency ” which called to be considered in depth with particular reference to past experience in GPE , to the developing experience of other countries and to the potential effectiveness of a detailed prescriptive code in place of the present blanket ban . However , he concluded that the policy could not be considered “ irrational ” at the time the applicants were discharged from the armed forces , finding that the threshold of irrationality was “ a high one ” and that it had not been crossed in this case .

On the Convention , the Master of the Rolls noted as follows :

“ It is , inevitably , common ground that GPE obligation , binding in international law , to respect and ensure compliance with [ LAW ] is not one that is enforceable by domestic courts . The relevance of the LAW in the present context is as background to the complaint of irrationality . The fact that a decision - maker failed to take account of LAW when exercising an administrative discretion is not of itself a ground for impugning the exercise of that discretion . ”

He observed that to dismiss a person from his or her employment on the grounds of a private sexual preference , and to interrogate him or her about private sexual behaviour , would not appear to show respect for that person ’s private and family life and that there might be room for argument as to whether the policy answered a “ pressing social need ” and , in particular , was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued . However , he held that these were not questions to which answers could be properly or usefully proffered by ORG but rather were questions for ORG , to which court the applicants might have to pursue their claim . He further accepted that ORG did not apply to complaints in relation to sexual orientation .

PERSON of ORG agreed with the judgment of the Master of the Rolls and , in particular , with the latter ’s approach to the irrationality test and with his view on the inability of the court to resolve Convention issues . He questioned the utility of a debate as to the likely fate of the “ longstanding ” policy of ORG before ORG with which the primary adjudicating role on the Convention lay . ORG did not entertain “ hypothetical questions ” . In PERSON view , the only relevance of the ORG was as “ background to the complaint of irrationality ” , which point had been already made by the Master of the Rolls . It was important to highlight this point since ORG had not given the domestic courts primary jurisdiction over human rights issues contained in the ORG and because the evidence and submissions before ORG related to that court ’s secondary jurisdiction and not to its primary jurisdiction .

PERSON of ORG agreed with both preceding judgments and , in particular , with the views expressed on the rationality test to be applied and on its application in the particular case . The applicants’ arguments that their rights under LAW had been breached were “ persuasive ” but the evidence and arguments that would ultimately determine that issue were not before ORG . He also found that the ORG challenge to the arguments in support of the policy was “ completely persuasive ” and added that what impressed him most in relation to the merits was the complete absence of illustration and substantiation by specific examples , not only in the Secretary of ORG ’s evidence filed in ORG , but also in the case presented to ORG in DATE . The policy was , in his view , “ ripe for review and for consideration of its replacement by a strict conduct code ” . However , the applicants’ attack on the Secretary of ORG ’s rationality fell “ a long way short of success ” .

On DATE ORG of ORG refused leave to appeal to ORG .

At or around the time the applicants lodged their applications for leave to take judicial review proceedings , they also instituted proceedings before ORG alleging discrimination contrary to LAW DATE . The latter proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicants confirmed to ORG that they had requested the withdrawal of ORG proceedings given the outcome of the judicial review proceedings and other intervening jurisprudence of the domestic courts and of the ECJ .

By virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , homosexual acts in private between CARDINAL consenting adults ( at the time meaning DATE or over ) ceased to be criminal offences . However , such acts continued to constitute offences under the ORG and ORG Acts DATE and LAW DATE ( Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW was repealed by ORG which LAW also reduced the age of consent to DATE ) . However , section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that nothing in that section prevented a homosexual act ( with or without other acts or circumstances ) from constituting a ground for discharging a member of the armed forces .

On DATE the ECJ decided that transsexuals were protected from discrimination on grounds of their transsexuality under ORG law ( PERSON and ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG referred to the ECJ pursuant to LAW the question of the applicability of LAW to differences of treatment based on sexual orientation ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte Perkins , DATE ) . PERSON had been discharged from ORG on grounds of his homosexuality .

On DATE the ECJ found that the Equal Pay Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC did not apply to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation ( Grant v. ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , on DATE the ECJ enquired of ORG in the GPE case whether it wished to maintain the Article CARDINAL reference . After a hearing between the parties , ORG decided to withdraw the question from the ECJ ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte Perkins , DATE ) . Leave to appeal was refused .

As a consequence of the changes made by ORG , updated Armed Forces’ Policy and Guidelines on Homosexuality ( “ the LAW ) were distributed to the respective service directorates of personnel in DATE . The Guidelines provided , inter alia , as follows :

“ Homosexuality , whether male or female , is considered incompatible with service in the armed forces . This is not only because of the close physical conditions in which personnel often have to live and work , but also because homosexual behaviour can cause offence , polarise relationships , induce ill - discipline and , as a consequence , damage morale and unit effectiveness . If individuals admit to being homosexual whilst serving and their Commanding Officer judges that this admission is well - founded they will be required to leave the services ...

The armed forces’ policy on homosexuality is made clear to all those considering enlistment . If a potential recruit admits to being homosexual , he / she will not be enlisted . Even if a potential recruit admits to being homosexual but states that he / she does not at present nor in the future intend to engage in homosexual activity , he / she will not be enlisted ...

In dealing with cases of suspected homosexuality , a Commanding Officer must make a balanced judgment taking into account all the relevant factors . ... In most circumstances , however , the interests of the individual and the armed forces will be best served by formal investigation of the allegations or suspicion . Depending on the circumstances , the Commanding Officer will either conduct an internal inquiry , using his own staff , or he will seek assistance from ORG . When conducting an internal inquiry he will normally discuss the matter with his welfare support staff . Homosexuality is not a medical matter , but there may be circumstances in which the Commanding Officer should seek the advice of ORG on the individual concerned and may then , if the individual agrees , refer him / her to the ORG ...

A written warning in respect of an individual ’s conduct or behaviour may be given in circumstances where there is some evidence of homosexuality but insufficient ... to apply for administrative discharge ... . If the Commanding Officer is satisfied on a high standard of proof of an individual ’s homosexuality , administrative action to terminate service ... is to be initiated ... ”

CARDINAL of the purposes of the Guidelines was the reduction of the involvement of the service police whose investigatory methods , based on criminal procedures , had been strongly resented and widely publicised in the past ( confirmed at paragraph CARDINAL of the Homosexual Policy Assessment Team ’s report of DATE which is summarised at paragraphs DATE below . However , paragraph CARDINAL of this report indicated that investigation into homosexuality is part of “ normal service police duties ” . )

The affidavit of Air Chief Marshal Sir PERSON , ORG , Vice Chief of ORG , ORG dated DATE , which was submitted to ORG in the case of NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte Perkins ( DATE ) , read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The policy of ORG is that the special nature of homosexual life precludes the acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality in the armed forces . The primary concern of the armed forces is the maintenance of an operationally effective and efficient force and the consequent need for strict maintenance of discipline . [ ORG ] believes that the presence of homosexual personnel has the potential to undermine this .

The conditions of military life , both on operations and within the service environment , are very different from those experienced in civilian life . … The [ ORG ] believes that these conditions , and the need for absolute trust and confidence between personnel of all ranks , must dictate its policy towards homosexuality in the armed forces . It is not a question of a moral judgement , nor is there any suggestion that homosexuals are any less courageous than heterosexual personnel ; the policy derives from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexuality for fighting power . ”

Following the decision in the case of NORP v. ORG , ex parte Smith and Others CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL , ORG ( “ HPAT ” ) was established by ORG in order to undertake an internal assessment of the armed forces’ policy on homosexuality . The ORG was composed of ORG civil servants and representatives of the CARDINAL services . The ORG ’s assessment was to form the basis of the ORG ’s evidence to the next ORG ( as confirmed in the affidavit of ORG Marshal Sir PERSON referred to at paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The ORG was to consult ORG , the armed forces’ personnel of all ranks , service and civilian staff responsible for carrying out the policy together with members of the legal adviser ’s staff . It was also to examine the policies of other nations ( Annex D to the ORG report ) .

The report of the ORG was published in DATE and ran to CARDINAL pages , together with voluminous annexes . The starting - point of the assessment was an assumption that homosexual men and women were in themselves no less physically capable , brave , dependable and skilled than heterosexuals . It was considered that any problems to be identified would lie in the difficulties which integration of declared homosexuals would pose to the military system which was largely staffed by heterosexuals . The ORG considered that the best predictors of the “ reality and severity ” of the problems of the integration of homosexuals would be the service personnel themselves ( paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) .

There were CARDINAL main areas of investigation ( paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) :

( a ) The ORG consulted with policy - makers in ORG . The latter emphasised the uniqueness of the military environment and the distinctly NORP approach to service life and the ORG found little disagreement with this general perspective from the service people it interviewed ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ;

( b ) A signal was sent to all members of the services , including the reserve forces , requesting any written views on the issues . By DATE the ORG had received CARDINAL letters . CARDINAL of these letters were against any change in the policy , CARDINAL of which were multiply signed . CARDINAL of those letters were anonymous ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) ;

( c ) The ORG attitude survey consisted of a questionnaire administered to a total of CARDINAL service personnel chosen as representative of the services . The questionnaires were administered in examination - type conditions and were to be completed anonymously . The results indicated that there was “ overwhelming support across the services ” for the policy excluding homosexuals from the armed forces . Service personnel viewed homosexuality as clearly more acceptable in civilian than in service life ( paragraphs CARDINAL and ORG ) ;

( d ) During the ORG ’s visit to CARDINAL military bases in DATE in order to administer the above questionnaire , individual one - to - CARDINAL interviews were conducted with personnel who had completed the attitude questionnaire . CARDINAL interviewees randomly selected from certain ranks and occupational areas were selected from each of the CARDINAL units visited . Given the small number of interviewees , the responses were analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively ( Annex G ) ;

( e ) A number of single - service focus group discussions were held with randomly selected personnel from representative ranks and functions ( ORG refers to CARDINAL such discussions whereas paragraph CARDINAL of the report refers to CARDINAL ) . The purpose of the group discussions was to examine the breadth and depth of military views and to provide insights that would complement the survey results . The ORG commented that the nature of the discussions showed little reticence in honestly and fully putting forward views ; there was an “ overwhelming view that homosexuality was not ‘ normal’ or ‘ natural’ whereas women and ethnic minorities were ‘ normal’ ” . The vast majority of participants believed that the present ban on homosexuals should remain ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and ORG ) ;

( f ) CARDINAL sub - team of the ORG went to GPE , GPE and GPE and the other visited GPE , GPE and the GPE . The ORG interviewed an eminent NORP military psychologist since the NORP military would not accept the ORG visit ( paragraphs CARDINAL and ORG ) . It is also apparent that the ORG spoke to representatives of the police , the fire service and the merchant navy ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ;

( g ) ORG - service regional focus discussion groups were also held to examine the breadth and depth of the personnel ’s views . The groups were drawn from the CARDINAL services and from different units . CARDINAL such discussion groups were held and overall the results were the same as those from the single - service focus groups ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and ORG ) ;

( h ) ORG single - service attitude surveys were also completed by a randomly selected sample of personnel stratified by rank , age and gender . The surveys were distributed to CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) of ORG and ORG personnel , to CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) of the ORG personnel and to CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) of the ORG personnel . On CARDINAL of the surveys were returned ( paragraphs CARDINAL and ORG ) .

The ORG report defined “ fighting power ” ( often used interchangeably with combat effectiveness , operational efficiency or operational effectiveness ) as the “ ability to fight ” which is in turn made up of CARDINAL components . These are the “ conceptual ” and “ physical ” components together with the “ moral component ” , the latter being defined as “ the ability to get people to fight including morale , comradeship , motivation , leadership and management ” .

The focus throughout the assessment was upon the anticipated effects on fighting power and this was found to be the “ key problem ” in integrating homosexuals into the armed forces . It was considered well - established that the presence of known or strongly suspected homosexuals in the armed forces would produce certain behavioural and emotional responses and problems which would affect morale and , in turn , significantly and negatively affect the fighting power of the armed forces .

These anticipated problems included controlling homosexual behaviour and heterosexual animosity , assaults on homosexuals , bullying and harassment of homosexuals , ostracism and avoidance , “ cliquishness ” and pairing , leadership and decision - making problems including allegations of favouritism , discrimination and ineffectiveness ( but excluding the question of homosexual officers taking tactical decisions swayed by sexual preference ) , sub - cultural friction , privacy / decency issues , increased dislike and suspicions ( polarised relationships ) , and resentment over imposed change especially if controls on heterosexual expression also had to be tightened ( see Section F.II of the report ) .

The ORG also assessed other matters it described as “ subsidiary ” ( Section G and paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) . It found that , while cost implications of changing the policy were not quantifiable , it was not considered that separate accommodation for homosexuals would be warranted or wise and , accordingly , major expenditures on accommodation were considered unlikely ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Wasted training as regards discharged homosexuals was not considered to be a significant argument against maintaining the policy ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Should the wider social and legal position change in relation to civilian homosexual couples , then entitlements for homosexual partners would have to be accepted ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Large amounts of money or time were unlikely to be devoted to homosexual awareness training , given that it was unlikely to be effective in changing attitudes . It was remarked that , if required , tolerance training would probably be best addressed as “ part of an integrated programme for equal opportunities training in the military ” ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . There were strong indications that recruitment and retention rates would go down if there was a change in policy ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Concerns expressed about the fulfilment of the forces’ loco parentis responsibilities for young recruits were found not to stand up to close examination ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Medical and security concerns were considered separately ( Sections H and I , respectively , and paragraph CARDINAL of the report ) . While it was noted that medical concerns of personnel ( in relation to , inter alia , Aids ) were disproportionate to the clinical risks involved , it was considered that these concerns would probably need to be met with education packages and compulsory Aids testing . Otherwise , real acceptance and integration of homosexuals would be seriously prejudiced by emotional reactions and resentments and by concerns about the threat of Aids . The security issues ( including the possibility of blackmail of those suspected of being homosexual ) raised in defence of the policy were found not to stand up to close examination .

The ORG observed that there were a wide variety of official positions and legal arrangements evolving from local legal and political circumstances and ranging from a formal prohibition of all homosexual activity ( GPE ) , to administrative arrangements falling short of real equality ( GPE and GPE ) , to a deliberate policy to create an armed force friendly to homosexuals ( the GPE ) . According to the ORG , those countries which had no legal ban on homosexuals were more tolerant , had written constitutions and therefore a greater tradition of respect for human rights . The report continued :

“ But nowhere did ORG learn that there were significant numbers of open homosexuals serving in ORG . Whatever the degree of official toleration or encouragement , informal pressures or threats within the military social system appeared to prevent the vast majority of homosexuals from choosing to exercise their varying legal rights to open expression of their active sexual identity in a professional setting . … It goes without saying that the continuing reticence of military homosexuals in these armed forces means that there has been little practical experience of protecting them against ostracism , harassment or physical attack .

Since this common pattern of a near absence of openly homosexual personnel occurs irrespective of the formal legal frameworks , it is reasonable to assume that it is the informal functioning of actual military systems which is largely incompatible with homosexual self - expression . This is entirely consistent with the pattern of NORP service personnel ’s attitudes confirmed by the ORG . ”

In DATE there were over CARDINAL NORP service personnel ( PERCENT approximately of the NORP armed forces ) deployed overseas on operations , more than any other ORG country in LOC ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The ORG concluded , nevertheless , that the policy had not presented significant problems when working with the armed forces of allied nations . The ORG remarked that NORP service personnel had shown a “ robust indifference ” to arrangements in foreign forces and no concern over what degree of acceptance closely integrated allies give to homosexuals . This is because the average service person considers that those others “ are not NORP , have different standards , and are thus only to be expected to do things differently ” and because personnel from different nations are accommodated apart . It was also due to the fact that homosexuals in foreign forces , where they were not formally banned , were not open about their sexual orientation . Consequently , the chances were small of the few open homosexuals happening to be in a situation where their sexual orientation would become a problem with NORP service personnel ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Important differences were considered by the ORG to exist between the armed forces and civilian disciplined services in GPE including the police , the fire brigade and the merchant navy which did not operate the same policy against homosexuals . It considered that :

“ None of these occupations involves the same unremittingly demanding and long - term working environment as ORG , or requires the same emphasis on building rapidly interchangeable , but fiercely committed and self - supporting teams , capable of retaining their cohesion after DATE of stress , casualties and discomfort … ” ( paragraph CARDINAL )

Alternative options were considered by the ORG including a code of conduct applicable to all , a policy based on the individual qualities of homosexual personnel , lifting the ban and relying on service personnel reticence , the “ do n’t ask , do n’t tell ” solution offered by the GPE and a “ no open homosexuality ” code . It concluded that no policy alternative could be identified which avoided risks for fighting power with the same certainty as the present policy and which , in consequence , would not be strongly opposed by the service population ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) .

The ORG found that :

“ the key problem remains and its intractability has indeed been re - confirmed . The evidence for an anticipated loss in fighting power has been set out in section F and forms the centrepiece of this assessment . The various steps in the argument and the overall conclusion have been shown not only by the ORG authorities but by the great majority of Service personnel in all ranks . ”

Current service attitudes were considered unlikely to change in the near future . While clearly hardship and invasion of privacy were involved , the risk to fighting power demonstrated why the policy was , nevertheless , justified . It considered that it was not possible to draw any meaningful comparison between the integration of homosexuals and of women and ethnic minorities into the armed forces since homosexuality raised problems of a type and intensity that gender and race did not .

The ORG considered that , in the longer term , evolving social attitudes towards homosexuality might reduce the risks to fighting power inherent in change but that their assessment could “ only deal with present attitudes and risks ” . It went on :

“ … certainly , if service people believed that they could work and live alongside homosexuals without loss of cohesion , far fewer of the anticipated problems would emerge . But the ORG must deal with the world as it is . Service attitudes , in as far as they differ from those of the general population , emerge from the unique conditions of military life , and represent the current social and psychological realities . They indicate military risk from a policy change …

… after collecting the most exhaustive evidence available , it is also evident that in the GPE homosexuality remains in practice incompatible with service life if the armed services , in their present form , are to be maintained at their full potential fighting power . ... Furthermore , the justification for the present policy has been overwhelmingly endorsed by a demonstrated consensus of the profession best able to judge it . It must follow that a major change to the ORG ’s current GPE - service Guidelines on homosexuality should be contemplated only for clearly stated non - defence reasons , and with a full acknowledgement of the impact on Service effectiveness and service people ’s feelings . ”

The Defence Council ’s “ Code of Practice on Race Relations ” issued in DATE declared the armed forces to be equal opportunity employers . It stated that no form of racial discrimination , harassment or abuse would be tolerated , that allegations would be investigated and , if proved , disciplinary action would be taken . It provided for a complaints procedure in relation to discrimination or harassment and it warned against the victimisation of service personnel who made use of their right of complaint and redress .

NORP In DATE the army published an Equal Opportunities Directive dealing with racial and sexual harassment and bullying . The policy document contained , as a preamble , a statement of the Adjutant- General which reads as follows :

“ The reality of conflict requires high levels of teamwork in which individual soldiers can rely absolutely on their comrades and their leaders . There can , therefore , be no place in the ORG for harassment , bullying and discrimination which will affect morale and break down the trust and cohesion of the group .

It is the duty of every soldier to ensure that the ORG is kept free of such behaviour which would affect cohesion and efficiency . ORG policy is clear : all soldiers must be treated equally on the basis of their ability to perform their duty .

I look to each one of you to uphold this policy and to ensure that we retain our acknowledged reputation as a highly professional ORG . ”

The Directive provided definitions of racial and sexual harassment , indicated that the army wanted to prevent all forms of offensive and unfair behaviour in these respects and pointed out that it was the duty of each soldier not to behave in a way that could be offensive to others or to allow others to behave in that way . It also defined bullying and indicated that , although the army fosters an aggressive spirit in soldiers who will have to go to war , controlled aggression , self - sufficiency and strong leadership must not be confused with thoughtless and meaningless use of intimidation and violence which characterise bullying . Bullying undermines morale and creates fear and stress both in the individual and the group being bullied and in the organisation . The army was noted to be a close - knit community where team work , cohesion and trust are paramount . Thus , high standards of personal conduct and respect for others were demanded from all .

The Directive endorsed the use of military law by commanders . Supplementary leaflets promoting the Directive were issued to every individual soldier . In addition , specific equal opportunities posts were created in personnel centres and a substantial training programme in LAW DATE was initiated .

Every DATE PERSON Forces’ Bill goes through ORG and a ORG conducts a review in connection with that bill .

NORP The report of ORG dated DATE noted , under the heading “ Homosexuality ” :

“ That the present policy causes very real distress and the loss to the services of some men and women of undoubted competence and good character is beyond dispute . Society outside the armed forces is now much more tolerant of differences in sexual orientation than it was , and this may also possibly be true of the armed forces . Nevertheless , there is considerable force to the [ ORG ] argument that the presence of people known to be homosexual can cause tension in a group of people required to live and work sometimes under great stress and physically DATE , and thus damage its cohesion and fighting effectiveness . It may be that this will change particularly with the integration of women into hitherto all - male units . We are not yet persuaded that the time has come to require the armed forces to accept homosexuals or homosexual activity . ”

The DATE ORG report ( produced after that committee ’s review of LAW ) referred to evidence taken from members of ORG and from homosexual support groups and to the ORG report . Once again , the committee did not recommend any change in the government ’s policy . It noted that , since its last report , a total of CARDINAL officers and CARDINAL persons of other rank had been discharged or dismissed on grounds of homosexuality . The committee was satisfied that no reliable lessons could as yet be drawn from the experience of other countries . It acknowledged the strength of the human rights arguments put forward , but noted that there had to be a balance struck between individual rights and the needs of the whole . It was persuaded by the ORG summary of the strength of opposition throughout the armed services to any relaxation of the policy . It accepted that the presence of openly homosexual servicemen and women would have a significant adverse impact on morale and , ultimately , on operational effectiveness . The matter was then debated in ORG and members , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , rejected any change to the existing policy .

DATE . Prior to DATE , applicants to the armed forces were informed about the armed forces’ policy as regards homosexuals in the armed forces by means of a leaflet entitled “ Your Rights and Responsibilities ” . To avoid any misunderstanding and so that each recruit to each of the armed services received identical information , on DATE the armed forces introduced a Service Statement to be read and signed before enlistment . Paragraph CARDINAL of that statement is headed “ Homosexuality ” and states that homosexuality is not considered compatible with service life and “ can lead to administrative discharge ” .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the city of GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivskyi District Court of Donetsk ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) against his neighbours PERSON B. and Mr NORP seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . The applicant alleged that his flat had been flooded on a number of occasions due to the GPE negligence .

On DATE ORG found in part for the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . ORG

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . ORG held that the first instance court had failed to take into account the instructions contained in its decision of DATE .

On DATE the proceedings were resumed before ORG . Following the applicants request , the court ordered a forensic technical examination in the case .

On DATE the hearings were resumed . The applicant lodged an additional claim , which he modified on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . ORG held that the first instance court had failed to determine whether Mr NORP had been liable for the damage caused to the applicant ’s flat , and to examine the grounds of the applicant ’s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court .

On DATE the panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation finding no appearance of any procedural or substantive omissions in the applicant ’s case .


The applicants , PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , and Mr PERSON , born in DATE , are NORP nationals and live in PERSON and GPE respectively . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . Another applicant , PERSON , born in DATE , died on DATE . The second applicant became her legal successor . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON from ORG .

On DATE the first , third , fourth , fifth , sixth and seventh applicants and CARDINAL other persons lodged an action for damages with the GPE - venkov ORG ( okresní soud ) against ORG ( ORG stavby , s.p . ) , a ORG owned company , requesting the court to order the defendant to cease operating a stone quarry and to pay them damages .

On DATE ORG , following CARDINAL successive inheritance proceedings , admitted the second applicant , as approved heir , to the proceedings . On DATE the court decided that the fourth applicant was the legal successor of another original claimant who had meanwhile died .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings . On DATE the applicants appealed against this decision . It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the appellate court .


GEORGIOU v. CYPRUS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

CARDINAL .

NORP The applicant , a NORP - Cypriot resident in GPE , entered into a contract to buy land in GPE from a NORP - NORP woman also resident in GPE . When the owner changed her mind about the agreement , the applicant brought proceedings to enforce the sale ; the owner brought a counter - claim to have the agreement declared null and void . The applicant was successful at first instance . By decision of DATE , ORG in its appellate jurisdiction reversed the lower court , declaring the agreement null and void and referring to the provisions of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL which required the consent of the Custodian to transactions in NORP - Cypriot properties .

The applicant invoked LAW No . CARDINAL and LAW as well as LAW and DATE .

CARDINAL applicants , NORP - Cypriots , entered into an agreement to buy land in GPE from a person who had inherited it from his father , a NORP - Cypriot . By letter of DATE , the Custodian refused permission for the sale classifying the property as falling under LAW .

The applicants invoked LAW No . CARDINAL .

The second and third applicants , administrators of property of a deceased NORP - Cypriot , agreed to sell CARDINAL plots of land to the first applicant , company registered in GPE : ORG refused to accept the transfer on DATE . No court proceedings were taken as the applicants explained that such sales were declared illegal by ORG applying Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The applicants invoked LAW No . CARDINAL and LAW .

The relevant laws , including LAW as amended in DATE , are set out in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . DATE et al , § § CARDINAL , decision of DATE ) .

NORP In its judgment of DATE in civil appeal no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( PERSON or ORG v. PERSON through his appointee by power of attorney PERSON ) , ORG held that , following the enactment of PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL , immovable property belonging to NORP who , from DATE , did not reside in the Government - controlled areas , came under the possession and administration of the Custodian and no legal act / transaction could be lawfully concluded / entered into in relation to the property without going through the Custodian or without his permission . This being so , all court proceedings concerning such property had to be brought against the Custodian and not against the NORP - Cypriot owner ( Section CARDINAL ( b ) of ORG ) . The court found therefore that the contract of sale and transfer entered into by the claimants concerning the property under custodianship was in breach of the provisions of LAW and was therefore illegal . The court also found that the contract was contrary to public policy as the contract interfered with the arrangements made by the ORG following the NORP invasion in order to protect NORP - Cypriot property and deal with the needs of CARDINAL of refugees . The court accordingly set aside the first - instance decision enforcing the sale contract and dismissed the action . It issued an order annulling the contract and the order of transfer that had been issued for the purposes of specific performance .