Η ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΣΤΟ ΓΙΒΡΑΛΤΑΡ ΕΠΑΝΕΞΕΤΑΖΕΙ ΤΗΝ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΑ ΣΤΟ ΟΡΙΟ ΗΛΙΚΙΑΣ ΣΥΝΑΙΝΕΣΗΣ.

Το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο του Γιβραλτάρ επανεξετάζει την ισχύουσα νομοθεσία που θέτει διαφορετικό όριο στην ηλικία συναίνεσης - 16 για τους ετεροφυλόφιλους, 18 για τους ομοφυλόφιλους άντρες και γυναίκες. Το αντίστοιχο δηλαδή του ελληνικού 347ΠΚ (15 για τους ετεροφυλόφιλους, 17 για τους ομοφυλόφιλους). Αξίζει να σημειώσουμε ό,τι η Ελλάδα και το Γιβραλτάρ είναι οι δύο μοναδικές χώρες στην Ευρώπη που διατηρούν αυτή τη νομοθεσία. Αντιγράφω σχετικό δημοσίευμα.

COURTS SET TO DECIDE ON GAY CONSENT AGE
by Brian Reyes, Gibralter Chronicle.
The stage is set for a unique Supreme Court case that will establish whether Gibraltar is violating constitutional law by criminalising homosexual sex under the age of 18.
At issue is the difference between the age of consent for homosexuals compared to that for lesbian and heterosexual couples.
Under existing law, males have to wait until they are 18 before they are legally allowed to have anal sex. In contrast, heterosexual and lesbian sex becomes legal at 16.
Chief Minister Peter Caruana and Attorney General Ricky Rhoda, QC, have asked the court to declare whether that difference breaches the constitutional rights of gay males.
The case will be the first time that the court exercises its powers under new legislation allowing the Government to seek a judge’s views on constitutional points.
The issue of equalising the age of consent for straight, lesbian and gay couples has already proved a controversial and emotive subject outside of court, prompting passionate debate in the community.
Last year, Parliament was divided as MPs voted freely on a Bill presented by Justice Minister Daniel Feetham to level out the ages of consent.
The Bill was defeated by eight votes to four but concern remained over whether the age difference was potentially unconstitutional. The Justice Minister believed it was, though others including the Chief Minister disagreed.
That concern, however, prompted the Gibraltar Government to seek clarification from the Supreme Court.
In their court filing, Mr Caruana and Mr Rhoda argue that, should the judge find that there is discrimination in law, then there is “objective and reasonable justification” for establishing different ages of consent.
The arguments in support of that position remain unknown at this point. Despite the public interest in this case, the Attorney General’s office yesterday declined to release preliminary documentation it had filed with the court and in which it outlined the Government’s reasoning.
Equality rights group GGR, which has signed up to the case as an interested party, said it was not in a position to release the Government’s documentation publicly, as did the court registry.
Ironically, the court itself had previously recognised the importance of this case to the wider community.
At a case management conference yesterday morning, Chief Justice Anthony Dudley ordered that adverts be placed in the local press inviting any interested parties to join the case to ensure their views are taken into account.
The court wants to ensure that anyone who feels they have substantive arguments to contribute can do so. The adverts will appear in the press in the coming days and the next case management conference is expected to take place early in April.
The claimants are represented in the case by Mr Rhoda himself and Crown lawyer Gaby Macevilly.
GGR is represented by John Restano and Danielle Vila.
Mr Restano has championed equality rights in the past. He was involved in a separate challenge in which the Privy Council ultimately ruled that housing rules here discriminated against gays by indirectly blocking them from obtaining joint tenancy over Government properties.