Norris v. A.G. [1983] IESC 3; [1984] IR 36 (22 April 1983)

Norris v. A.G. [1983] IESC 3; [1984] IR 36 (22 April 1983)

The Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adult males are not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court found that the State is entitled to legislate in the area of private morality, particularly where such conduct is regarded as morally wrong,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1983] IESC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: David Norris; Defendant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 April 1983
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Decriminalisation of Homosexuality, Right to Privacy, Equality Before the Law, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association, Bodily Integrity, Interpretation of Pre Constitutional Statutes
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Right to Privacy Equality Before the Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Association +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Norris

Plaintiff

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss. 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, and s. 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, are inconsistent with the Irish Constitution and thus not continued in force by Article 50
  2. 2 Whether the criminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adult males violates constitutional rights to privacy, equality, bodily integrity, freedom of expression, and association

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adult males are not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court found that the State is entitled to legislate in the area of private morality, particularly where such conduct is regarded as morally wrong, potentially harmful to public health, and inimical to the institution of marriage. The right to privacy is not absolute and does not override the State's interest in upholding public morality and protecting marriage. The Court rejected the argument that the European Convention on Human Rights or the Dudgeon v. UK decision had any bearing on the interpretation of the Irish Constitution....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration sought refused
  • Impugned statutory provisions upheld as constitutional