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.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e1
001-58021_a8_em1
DATETIME
QUASI
11 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58021_a8_e2
001-58021_a8_em2
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three‑month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e3
001-58021_a8_em3
CODE
DIRECT
21627/93
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e4
001-58021_a8_em4
CODE
QUASI
21826/93
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e5
001-58021_a8_em5
CODE
QUASI
21974/93
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e6
001-58021_a8_em6
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e7
001-58021_a8_em7
DATETIME
QUASI
14 December 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e8
001-58021_a8_em8
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e9
001-58021_a8_em9
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Colin Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e10
001-58021_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Roland Jaggard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e11
001-58021_a8_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Anthony Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e12
001-58021_a8_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e9
001-58021_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
001-58021_a8_em9
Mr Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e13
001-58021_a8_em14
PERSON
NO_MASK
Sir John Freeland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e8
001-58021_a8_em15
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e14
001-58021_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
001-58021_a8_em25
Mr R. Bernhardt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e15
001-58021_a8_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
8 February 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e16
001-58021_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e17
001-58021_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Russo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e18
001-58021_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Spielmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e19
001-58021_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M.A. Lopes Rocha
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e20
001-58021_a8_em22
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Wildhaber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e21
001-58021_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Kuris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e22
001-58021_a8_em24
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Levits
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e14
001-58021_a8_em25
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bernhardt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e23
001-58021_a8_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e24
001-58021_a8_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
2 and 15 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e25
001-58021_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
17 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e26
001-58021_a8_em29
ORG
QUASI
Rights International
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e27
001-58021_a8_em30
LOC
NO_MASK
New York
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e28
001-58021_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
16 August 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58021_a8_e29
001-58021_a8_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e30
001-58021_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
21 October 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e31
001-58021_a8_em34
PERSON
QUASI
Mr I. Christie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e32
001-58021_a8_em35
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e33
001-58021_a8_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Pannick QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e34
001-58021_a8_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Shaw
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e35
001-58021_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Bramley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e36
001-58021_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Ms B. Moxon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e37
001-58021_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Mr G. Ress
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e38
001-58021_a8_em41
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e39
001-58021_a8_em42
PERSON
QUASI
Ms A. Worrall QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e40
001-58021_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Jonas
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e41
001-58021_a8_em44
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Hamilton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e42
001-58021_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
Mr I. Geffen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e43
001-58021_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Wadham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e37
001-58021_a8_em47
PERSON
QUASI
001-58021_a8_em40
Mr Ress
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e34
001-58021_a8_em48
PERSON
QUASI
001-58021_a8_em37
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e39
001-58021_a8_em49
PERSON
QUASI
001-58021_a8_em42
Ms Worrall
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e33
001-58021_a8_em50
PERSON
QUASI
001-58021_a8_em36
Mr Pannick
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e9
001-58021_a8_em51
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e44
001-58021_a8_em52
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Jaggard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e45
001-58021_a8_em53
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e8
001-58021_a8_em54
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e46
001-58021_a8_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
1943
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e47
001-58021_a8_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
1947
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e48
001-58021_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
1935
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e9
001-58021_a8_em58
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e49
001-58021_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
14 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e50
001-58021_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e51
001-58021_a8_em61
QUANTITY
QUASI
forty-four
SEX
insert
001-58021_a8_e52
001-58021_a8_em62
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e53
001-58021_a8_em63
DATETIME
NO_MASK
ten-year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58021_a8_e54
001-58021_a8_em64
DEM
QUASI
21 years old
SEX
check
001-58021_a8_e52
001-58021_a8_em65
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e55
001-58021_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 1990
SEX
insert
001-58021_a8_e56
001-58021_a8_em67
DEM
QUASI
homosexuality
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e9
001-58021_a8_em68
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e57
001-58021_a8_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e58
001-58021_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e57
001-58021_a8_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e58
001-58021_a8_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e9
001-58021_a8_em73
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e59
001-58021_a8_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e44
001-58021_a8_em75
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Jaggard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e60
001-58021_a8_em76
DATETIME
QUASI
three years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e61
001-58021_a8_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e59
001-58021_a8_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e45
001-58021_a8_em79
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e62
001-58021_a8_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
two years and nine months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e59
001-58021_a8_em81
DATETIME
QUASI
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e63
001-58021_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
nine months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e59
001-58021_a8_em83
DATETIME
QUASI
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e64
001-58021_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
19 February 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e65
001-58021_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e9
001-58021_a8_em86
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e66
001-58021_a8_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
eighteen months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e67
001-58021_a8_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e58
001-58021_a8_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e61
001-58021_a8_em90
DATETIME
QUASI
two years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e44
001-58021_a8_em91
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Jaggard
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e45
001-58021_a8_em92
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e58
001-58021_a8_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e67
001-58021_a8_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e68
001-58021_a8_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e69
001-58021_a8_em96
DATETIME
QUASI
11 March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58021_a8_e70
001-58021_a8_em97
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e71
001-58021_a8_em98
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e68
001-58021_a8_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e72
001-58021_a8_em100
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Templeman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e73
001-58021_a8_em101
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e74
001-58021_a8_em102
PERSON
QUASI
Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e75
001-58021_a8_em103
PERSON
QUASI
Cadman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e75
001-58021_a8_em104
PERSON
QUASI
Cadman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58021_a8_e74
001-58021_a8_em105
PERSON
QUASI
Laskey
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58021_a8_e76
001-58021_a8_em106
PERSON
QUASI
Horwich
SEX
check
001-58021_a8_e52
001-58021_a8_em107
DEM
QUASI
homosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e77
001-58021_a8_em108
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e78
001-58021_a8_em109
LOC
QUASI
Wales
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e79
001-58021_a8_em110
PERSON
QUASI
Lady Mallalieu
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e80
001-58021_a8_em111
PERSON
QUASI
Mathew J.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e81
001-58021_a8_em112
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Mustill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e82
001-58021_a8_em113
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Slynn of Hadley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e68
001-58021_a8_em114
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58021_a8_e82
001-58021_a8_em115
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Slynn of Hadley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58021_a8_e44
001-58021_a8_em116
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Jaggard
Colin Laskey
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Colin Laskey