R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Last updated

R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Decided15 December 2021 (2021-12-15)
Citation[2021] UKSC 56
Case history
Prior action[2020] EWCA Civ 363
Court membership
Judges sitting Robert Reed, David Lloyd Jones, Mary Arden, Philip Sales, Vivien Rose

R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was a UK court case that ruled that the Home Office did not have an obligation to offer a third gender "X" option on passports. [1]

Contents

Background

Legal recognition of non-binary gender has advanced in the 2010s, with several governments introducing third gender options (usually in form of an "X" alongside "M" and "F") on passports, such as Australia, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Nepal, and Uruguay. The International Civil Aviation Organization accepts "X" as an option for travel documents in its official guidelines.

While the UK currently does not offer a third gender option for passports, the 2010s saw an increase in calls for the introduction of such an option. Between July 2017 and March 2019, 83 MPs signed an early day motion calling for the British government to introduce a third gender on British passports. [2] [3]

Summary

Christie Elan-Cane is a British non-gendered activist who has been active in campaigning for LGBT+ rights since the 1990s. [4] With law firm Clifford Chance, Elan-Cane sued the Home Office in the 2010s over its refusal to issue passports with a third gender "X" option. [5]

In 2018, the High Court ruled in favour of the Home Office. [6]

In March 2020, the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court ruling, finding that "there was no positive obligation on the state to provide an “X” marker in order to ensure the right of the Appellant to respect for private life." [7] The Court of Appeal also ruled that there was no consensus yet among the Council of Europe on gender neutral passports and that there was no wide-ranging plan for gender neutral options in British government ID systems. [8]

In January 2021, it was announced that the UK Supreme Court would hear the appeal in mid-July of that year. [9] [10] In December 2021, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom issued its judgment, ruling against Elan-Cane. The court's judgment ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights did not require states to issue an "X" option and that there was "no legislation in the United Kingdom which recognises a non-gendered category of individuals." Elan-Cane pledged to appeal the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian Institute</span>

The Christian Institute (CI) is a charity operating in the United Kingdom, promoting a conservative evangelical Christian viewpoint, founded on a belief in Biblical inerrancy. The CI is a registered charity. The group does not report numbers of staff, volunteers or members with only the former director, Colin Hart, listed as a representative. Hart died in March 2024, leaving the directorship vacant. According to the accounts and trustees annual report for the financial year ending 2017, the average head count of employees during the year was 48 (2016:46).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</span> Final court of appeal in the UK

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom's highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Singapore</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in Singapore have evolved over the decades. Same-sex sexual activity is legal for both males and females; for men it was officially legalised in 2022 after being de facto decriminalised since 2007, and for women it was always legal. Prior to 2022, same-sex sexual activity between males was de jure illegal under the British colonial-era Section 377A of the Penal Code. The law had been de facto unenforced for decades. In February 2022, the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court reaffirmed that 377A cannot be used to prosecute men for having sex with other men, and that it is "unenforceable in its entirety". Transgender rights in the country are also progressive in the region, which included Singapore being the first country in Asia to legalise sex reassignment surgery in 1973.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Pannick, Baron Pannick</span> British lawyer and House of Lords crossbencher

David Philip Pannick, Baron Pannick, is a British barrister and a crossbencher in the House of Lords and Blackstone Chambers. He practises primarily in public law and human rights and has argued high profile cases before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Nepal</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) rights in Nepal have expanded in the 21st century, though much of Nepal's advancements on LGBT rights have come from the judiciary and not the legislature. Same-sex sexual acts have been legal in Nepal since 2007 after a ruling by the Supreme Court of Nepal.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

In the United States, the rights of transgender people vary considerably by jurisdiction. In recent decades, there has been an expansion of federal, state, and local laws and rulings to protect transgender Americans; however, many rights remain unprotected, and some rights are being eroded. Since 2020, there has been a national movement by conservative/right-wing politicians and organizations to target transgender rights. There has been a steady increase in the number of anti-transgender bills introduced each year, especially in Republican-led states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in New Jersey</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of New Jersey have the same legal rights as non-LGBTQ people. LGBT individuals in New Jersey enjoy strong protections from discrimination, and have had the same marriage rights as heterosexual people since October 21, 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Vermont</span>

Vermont is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights, with most progress in jurisprudence having occurred in the late 20th and the early 21st centuries. Vermont was one of 37 U.S. states, along with the District of Columbia, that issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples prior to the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, establishing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples nationwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Oregon</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Oregon have the same legal rights as non-LGBTQ people. Oregon became one of the first U.S. jurisdictions to decriminalize sodomy in 1972, and same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since May 2014 when a federal judge declared the state's ban on such marriages unconstitutional. Previously, same-sex couples could only access domestic partnerships, which guaranteed most of the rights of marriage. Additionally, same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations is outlawed in the state under the Oregon Equality Act, enacted in 2008. Conversion therapy on minors is also illegal.

Mx is an English-language neologistic honorific that does not indicate gender. Created as an alternative to gendered honorifics in the late 1970s, it is the most common gender-neutral title among non-binary people and people who do not wish to imply a gender in their titles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Arkansas</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Arkansas face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBTQ residents. Same-sex sexual activity in Arkansas was decriminalized in 2001 and legally codified in 2005. Same-sex marriage became briefly legal through a court ruling on May 9, 2014, subject to court stays and appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States nationwide including in Arkansas. Nonetheless, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not banned in Arkansas until the Supreme Court banned it nationwide in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal recognition of intersex people</span>

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that, according to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".

<i>R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union</i> Constitutional decision of Supreme Court

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal recognition of non-binary gender</span>

Multiple countries legally recognize non-binary or third gender classifications. These classifications are typically based on a person's gender identity. In some countries, such classifications may only be available to intersex people, born with sex characteristics that "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender rights in the United Kingdom</span>

Transgender rights in the United Kingdom have varied significantly over time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender rights in Argentina</span>

Transgender and travesti rights in Argentina have been lauded by many as some of the world's most progressive. The country "has one of the world's most comprehensive transgender rights laws". The Gender Identity Law, passed in 2012, made Argentina the "only country that allows people to change their gender identities without facing barriers such as hormone therapy, surgery or psychiatric diagnosis that labels them as having an abnormality". In 2015, the World Health Organization cited Argentina as an exemplary country for providing transgender rights. Leading transgender activists include Lohana Berkins, Diana Sacayán, Mariela Muñoz, María Belén Correa, Marlene Wayar, Claudia Pía Baudracco, Susy Shock and Lara Bertolini.

<i>Begum v Home Secretary</i> 2021 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case

Begum v Home Secretary [2021] UKSC 7 is the short name of three closely connected proceedings considered together in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, R v Special Immigration Appeals Commission; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerning Shamima Begum, a woman born in the United Kingdom who at the age of 15 travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Her intention to return to England in 2019 resulted in a public debate about the handling of returning jihadists.

References

  1. "R (Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department". Blackstone Chambers.
  2. Rachael Bunyan (3 December 2019). "U.K. Government Taken to Court Over Refusal to Issue Gender Neutral Passports". Time . Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  3. "X PASSPORTS FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH A PARTICULAR GENDER". UK Parliament. 12 July 2017.
  4. "'Why I want gender-neutral UK passports'". BBC News . 11 October 2017. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  5. Anastasia Kyriacou (24 October 2014). "Meet someone who isn't male or female and wants a new type of passport". PinkNews . Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  6. Josh Jackman (22 June 2018). "Non-gendered campaigner loses High Court battle for non-binary passports". PinkNews . Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  7. "Media Summary - The Queen (on the Application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) and Human Rights Watch (Intervener) [2020] EWCA Civ 363" (PDF). Judiciary.uk . 10 March 2020. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  8. "Christie Elan-Cane loses legal challenge over gender-neutral passports". BBC News . 10 March 2020. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  9. Vic Parsons (29 January 2021). "UK's highest court confirms when it will hear landmark case on gender-neutral passports". PinkNews . Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  10. "R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)". Supreme Court of the United Kingdom . Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  11. Joseph Lee (15 December 2021). "Gender-neutral passports: Campaigner Christie Elan-Cane loses Supreme Court case". BBC . Retrieved 18 December 2021.