Kirkup (Appellant) v His Majesty's Advocate (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0101

Parties

Appellant(s)

Sean Kirkup

Respondent(s)

THE LORD ADVOCATE

Issue

Did the trial judge’s decision to exclude certain material from the evidence presented to the jury breach the appellant’s right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Facts

The appellant, Mr Kirkup, was convicted on 5 February 2025 by a jury at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh of four sexual and domestic abuse offences against two former partners. This included a charge of sexual assault against one of the women by pulling her hair, pushing her and striking her body with a whip and paddle. The appellant was sentenced to a custodial term of four years and an extension period of 2 years. The appellant appealed his conviction. He argued that he had not received a fair trial, as required by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because he had been prevented from adducing evidence showing that he and the complainer had a history of consensually engaging in BDSM (bondage, domination, submission and masochism). In particular, the appellant had not been permitted to adduce evidence regarding the existence and use of a safeword. The High Court of Justiciary dismissed his appeal. He now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

20 July 2026

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed

Lord Hamblen

Lady Simler

Permission to Appeal decision date

29 September 2026

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

The court has no jurisdiction in respect of grounds of appeal (a) to (f), ie those concerned with the common law. The remaining grounds do not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which the Supreme Court ought to hear at this time.

Back to top