"I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife’

I think it is highly likely that this has either been misquoted or quoted out of context - given the nature of the case it seems highly unlikely that he would have said this as a bald statement.

It is an area that does need legal clarification but it is also really very tricky area that needs really careful handling.

Justice Hayden was wise and compassionate during the Alfie Evans case, and when he removed the boy from his mothers care who she was forcing to live as a girl. This may have been awkwardly worded but I’ll wait and see how things play out until I call for him to be flayed.

I came on to find this.

I struggle to understand what the judge could possibly have said for this to be acceptable even if take out of context or just a partial quote, but the media need to stop reporting shit.

Why is the fundamental right of a man to have sex with his wife even an issue?

Pardon?

But we already have Deprivation of Liberty or DOLs as it's known.

DOLs includes putting a safety belt on a person in a wheel chair because to to this means restraint.

Why is the fundamental right of a man to have sex with his wife even an issue?

But one has to wonder why this is going to court.

Because this isn't just about the couple in question, its a wider issue of a what point should social services step in, and on what legal basis they can slap a sex ban on a married couple - a growing issue in terms of capacity for decision making, and not one to be taken lightly. It's absolutely right that the court of protection deals with this, and long overdue.

how can someone who says this still be allowed to be a judge?

Hmm when it comes to quotes I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt that they have been misquoted/taken out of context but I really can't believe how with this quote?

I heard this on the radio (2 and 4) earlier and was very shocked. Thanks to PPs for clarification and shame on the BBC for such misleading reporting of the case.

Whether his full judgment /statement moderates that sentence is by the by really. Judges of all people should be able to and required to write sentences that are coherent and accurate. He should abstain from food and water until he decided to revise that sentence.

Obviously a man does not have a fundamental human right to have sex with his wife. The man in this case denotes owner and therefore ownership of a chattel which is the wife.

The man in this case is reported to not wanting to have sex with his wife. I can't help but think if the sexes were reversed then this would never go to court - wife wants to give generic erectile pill to husband who has learning difficulties post brain disorder. No judge would ever entertain the thought that it is a fundamental right for a wife to have sex with their husband.

It's a WTFFFFF moment for sure. But let's not judge the husband here. He has stated he will forgo sexual relationships. But one has to wonder why this is going to court.

I believe there will be court transcripts available? Does anyone know where we could find them? I truly hope it’s a misquote.

If the context was the right to have sex with a consenting wife fine. Any other context and claiming it is a fundamental human right to have sex with your wife is basically arguing that rape within marriage should unquestionably be allowed.

What a horrific statement to make. She is not a possession. How dare he!

What MyKingdom says makes sense. The context is whether social services are able to intervene and stop a man from having sex with his wife if they think she lacks mental capacity.

What happened to the UN declared human right to autonomy?

Mr Justice Hayden, eh? Nope, I’m sure Mr Justice Hayden is completely impartial here and will review the evidence with full consideration for the well-being of the woman in this case.

Honestly where do they find these dinosaurs? It would be ok to say that it is a fundamental right for the husband to experience love and affection, as it is for all human beings, but absolutely not even slightly ok to suggest he has a ‘right’ to expect it from his wife, regardless of her ability to consent. What is wrong with men that they believe they are STILL entitled to the use and exploitation of female bodies, after decades of legal reform and campaigns on consent?

What the actual fuck?

Funny they should say that as I can't think of any more fundamental right than the right to not be raped.

No enthusiastic consent, no sex.

What he means is not what he has said.

The husband is not trying to argue that he should have sex with his wife, he is very happy to agree that this never happens.

The Judge is trying to prevent a precedent where SS can decree that consent is not able to be given where, if they are wrong, a consenting couple having sex could land one party in jail.

Court reporting is a bit of an art. A couple of misplaced words can change the entire meaning of what was said (as I learned many years ago when a local paper reported that "Miss Mipsum, defending, said [something quite alarming which I definitely did not say, but was only out by a few words]")

If he said that sex between a man and wife is protected by fundamental human rights (which it is, by Article 8), but that the state may in exceptional circumstances interfere, then that would be more what I'd expect.

Of course I may be wrong and it's an entirely accurate replication of what was said, which would be disturbing.

Given this judge also presided over the Alfie evans case - I wonder if he was trying to make the point that social services should not get to make an arbitrary decision on a citizen's sex life and that all the factors should be heard? He struck me as very humane and sensitive in the Evans case so would like to think so, anyway.

Hayden J has a reputation for being a careful, sensitive judge

Yes. Same Justice Hayden who gave the judgement in the court ruling about the mother influenced by Mermaids.

Besmirching I'm fairly sure that part has been misreported. Hayden J has a reputation for being a careful, sensitive judge and I cannot imagine even a blundering, insensitive one saying that the state has a right to monitor people's sex lives.

A judge in the Court of Protection in London - a specialist court which looks at issues involving people who lack the mental capacity to
make decisions - has been asked to consider the case