Facts: The applicants were found in possession of video films depicting sado-masochistic and homosexual activities. They were charged with a series of offenses relating to those sado-masochistic activities, including maltreatment of the genitalia and ritualistic beatings. These activities were consensual and conducted in private, specially equipped "chambers".
Complaint: The applicants claimed that their acts were permitted under Article 8 of the Convention which guaranteed their right to conduct their private life to be undisturbed by their convictions which were "an unforeseeable application the criminal law"
Holding: the ECHR ruled that the presence of "a significant degree of injury or wounding" distinguished the case from previous cases dealing with "consensual homosexual behaviour in private between adults " so that the prosecution and conviction of the applicants were appropriate to safeguard public health within the meaning of Article 8(2).
A.D.T. v. U.K . reaffirmed the holding of Laskey, Jaggard, and Brown v. U.K
