European Court of Human Rights: Necessity Principle

What were the main charges brought against Mr. Laskey, Mr. Jaggard, and Mr. Brown?

When did Mr. Laskey die?

What were the sado-masochistic activities mainly conducted for?

What types of activities mainly constituted the instances of assault in the case?

What was the view of Lord Mustill concerning the criminal law in relation to the infliction of harm in private on a consenting recipient?

In relation to the criminal law, what did Lord Slynn of Hadley believe should be decided by the legislature?

According to the Offences against the Person Act 1861, what is required for an act to constitute a 'wound'?

What was the basis for the majority's opinions in the judgment of the House of Lords?

Why were reduced sentences imposed on appeal for the applicants?

What was the basis for the Court's finding that the measures taken against the applicants were not disproportionate?

What was the trial judge's remark when passing sentence?

Why were only a few charges selected for inclusion in the prosecution case?

What did the Court consider in determining whether the measures taken by national authorities were proportionate?

What was the basis for the prosecution of the defendants?

Why did the trial judge rule that the defendants could not rely on the consent of the 'victims' as an answer to the prosecution case?

What was the trial judge's comment regarding the homosexuality of the defendants?

What were the sentences imposed on Mr. Laskey, Mr. Jaggard, and Mr. Brown, respectively?

How were the applicants' sentences modified by the Court of Appeal?

What was the certified point of law of public importance on which the applicants appealed to the House of Lords?

Why was the appeal known as the case of R.v.Brown dismissed by a majority of the House of Lords?

What was used as a basis for reducing Mr. Laskey's sentence?

'Unlawful conduct now before the court' would be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation according to:

What was Mr. Jaggard sentenced to imprisonment for?

What led to Mr. Brown receiving twelve months’ imprisonment?

What is the definition of 'actual bodily harm' according to the 1861 Act?

In the case of R.v.Donovan, why did the court hold that the consent of the girl was immaterial?

According to the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980), what makes a fight unlawful?

In R.v.Wilson, what led to the Court of Appeal allowing the appeal?

What constitutes a 'disorderly house' as per common law?

What must be proven for premises to be considered a 'disorderly house' due to indecent performances or exhibitions?

In R.v.Miller, what did 'actual bodily harm' specifically refer to?

What reasoning led to the Court of Appeal allowing the appeal in R.v.Wilson?

Why did Lord Justice Russell state that there was no factual comparison between R.v.Wilson and R.v.Donovan or Brown?

What does a 'disorderly house' refer to as per common law?

What does the European Court of Human Rights consider when determining whether an interference is 'necessary in a democratic society'?

In what circumstances is the State entitled to regulate activities through the operation of criminal law?

Why does the European Court of Human Rights not accept the applicants' submission that no prosecution should have been brought against them?

What distinguishes the present case from previous cases concerning consensual private behavior between adults?

What did the applicants allege as a reason for being singled out in their prosecution?

What did Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle consider when deciding whether or not to prosecute?

What role does the European Court of Human Rights consider that the State is unquestionably entitled to undertake?

Why does the European Court of Human Rights consider that a margin of appreciation is left to national authorities?

What do the applicants contend about their prosecuted behavior?

What does Lord Templeman consider about the sado-masochistic activities?

What is a relevant factor affecting the scope of margin of appreciation?

What does the European Court of Human Rights consider about determining levels of harm tolerable by law?

According to Lord Templeman, what did the authorities establish regarding consent and the intentional infliction of bodily harm?

Based on Lord Templeman's opinion, what did counsel for the appellants argue with regard to consent and the right to deal with one's own body?

According to Lord Templeman, why did he not consider the slogan 'every person has a right to deal with his own body as he chooses' to be a sufficient guide to the policy decision?

According to Lord Templeman, what is the difference between violence incidental to an activity and violence inflicted for cruelty?

According to Lord Templeman, what is society entitled and bound to protect itself against?

According to Lord Jauncey, when is consent not an answer to the offense of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?

According to Lord Jauncey, what was emphasized by the appellants with regard to their activities?

Based on Lord Jauncey's opinion, what was considered in evaluating the public interest in relation to the appellants' activities?

Which provision of the Convention did the applicants rely on to complain about their convictions?

What did the Commission express in its report of 26 October 1995 regarding the violation of Article 8 of the Convention?

What did the applicants request the Court to consider?

What did the applicants believe their prosecution and convictions for assault and wounding breached?

What aspect of private life did the applicants claim was violated?

What was common ground among those appearing before the Court regarding the criminal proceedings against the applicants?

What was undisputed about the interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private life?

What legitimate aim did the interference with the applicants' private life pursue, according to the Government's assertion?

According to the Court's observation, what aspect of private life concerns an intimate aspect?

What did the Court see no reason to examine in the present case?

What did it become open to question whether sexual activities fell entirely within?

What did a considerable number of people being involved in question about whether sexual activities fell entirely within 'private life'?

Why did the applicants maintain that the interference in issue could not be regarded as 'necessary in a democratic society'?

What was the Government's contention regarding the State's entitlement to punish acts of violence?

What did the applicants argue regarding the role of consent in the criminal law?

According to the Commission, why did the State authorities act within their margin of appreciation?

What was one of the reasons given by the Government for banning acts of torture?

What did the applicants argue regarding matters of sexual expression?

What did the Government contend about the criminal law's role in deterring certain forms of behavior?

What was one of the reasons given by the Government for prohibiting activities?

What did the Government compare some acts committed by the applicants to?

What did the Government argue about acts committed in the context of a consenting sexual relationship?