In 2011 the Home Secretary appointed Dr Raabe as an unpaid member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. At his interview, when asked if there was anything in his professional or personal history that, if made public, might embarrass the Council or the Home Office, he failed to mention that in 2005 he had co-authored an article disapproving of homosexuality, ‘Gay marriage and homosexuality: some medical comments’. When the omission came to light his appointment was revoked on the grounds that his co-authorship of the article raised concerns over his credibility in providing balanced advice to the LGBT community on drug misuse and that his failure to disclose it raised serious issues about his general judgment. He sought judicial review.

Article 9 ECHR (thought, conscience and religion) was not central to the case but it received a considerable degree of attention because Dr Raabe asserted an absolute right to believe that ‘monogamous heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely intended for full sexual relations’ and that pluralism in a modern democratic society depended on the right to express unpopular or controversial views.

Stadlen J dismissed the claim. Article 9 only guaranteed an absolute entitlement to hold religious views, not to manifest them; in any case, the disputed article could not fairly be called a manifestation of religious beliefs. Nor did Article 9 confer a right to make offensive public statements with impunity simply because they were in some way religiously motivated. His conclusion was that ‘the issue of Dr Raabe's religious beliefs and his right to manifest them is a red herring in this case and I note that it was not advanced as a claim that his Article 9 rights were breached’. [Frank Cranmer]