The text of the talk is available here:
"there were no concrete obstacles for [Mr O.S.] to return to Gambia, at least temporarily. [He] and his partner had so far only lived together for a very limited period since [he] had been imprisoned for a considerable amount of time during their relationship. Furthermore, there were no indications that the Gambian authorities were aware of [Mr O.S.'s] homosexuality or partnership. Therefore ... there was no real risk for [Mr O.S.] under Article 3 [of the Convention], when returned to Gambia."Complaint to the Court
"In the light of [Mr O.S.'s] claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the expulsion order were enforced?"Context
Why have some gay people in the UK decided to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to complain about discrimination against them? What was their experience of going to Strasbourg, and what was the result?
In this podcast, Paul Johnson talks to Kevin Bazeley, Andrew Courten, Richard Desmond, Jeffrey Dudgeon MBE, Duncan Lustig-Prean, Will Parry, Emma Riley, Mary Simpson and Euan Sutherland about their experiences of going to Strasbourg. He also hears from academics Loveday Hodson and Robert Wintemute, as well as the human rights lawyer, William Nash.
Indeed, the present case shows that the above powers are often used in an arbitrary and discriminatory way. It provides ample examples of situations where opposition groups, human rights defenders or gay rights activists were not allowed to assemble at a central location and were required to go to the outskirts of town on the ground that they might hinder traffic, interfere with the everyday life of citizens, or present a security risk, and were dispersed and arrested if they refused to comply, while pro‑government public events were allowed to take place at the same location, traffic, everyday-life disturbances and security risks notwithstanding. The most telling example is the case of gay rights activists who proposed ten different locations in the town centre, all of which were rejected by the town authorities on various grounds, while an anti-gay public event was approved to take place at one of those same locations on the same day ... (§ 429).The Court concluded that the treatment of these applicants amounted to a violation of Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention.
"buggery", which was an offence in England and Wales between 1533 and 2003, and in Northern Ireland between 1634 and 2008;
"gross indecency between men", which was an offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland between 1885 and 2003;
either of the above two offences dealt with under Service (military) law going back to 1917 in respect of the Royal Air Force, 1881 in respect of the Army, and 1661 in respect of the Royal Navy; and
"procuring others to commit homosexual acts", in respect of Northern Ireland, which was an offence between 1982 and 2003.
first, the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence must have consented to it;
second, the other person involved in the conduct constituting the offence must have been aged 16 or over in respect of an offence in England and Wales, or aged 17 or over in respect of an offence in Northern Ireland; and
third, the conduct constituting the offence, if it took place today, must not constitute the offence of "sexual activity in a public lavatory".