R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v SSHD (Respondent)
R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
UKSC 2020/0081
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
The Appellant was born female but underwent several operations that were successful in achieving the desired status of "non-gendered." From 1995 onwards the Appellant has been in contact with Government Departments to seek to persuade the Government that a passport should be issued to the Appellant without the necessity of making a declaration of being either "male" or "female". This could be achieved by a third box being added to the passport application form allowing a person to mark that box with an "X" indicating gender "unspecified".
The Government refused to do so but conducted internal reviews to consider whether policy change was required. Its position throughout the proceedings has been that the current passport policy should not be considered in isolation, but as a part of a more fundamental review, which has begun but has not yet been completed.
The Appellant filed judicial review proceedings challenging the Government’s passport policy. The judicial review was dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Appellant appeals to this court.
The issues are:
Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in its conclusion that Her Majesty’s Passport Office’s Policy that (i) an applicant for a passport must declare their gender/sex as being either male or female
(ii) a passport will only be issued bearing a male ("M") or female ("F") indicator in the gender/sex field on the face of the passport and will not be issued with an "unspecified" ("X") gender marker does not unjustifiably breach articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR").
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. Lord Reed gives the sole judgment, with which the other Justices agree.
More information is available on our website.
Видео R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v SSHD (Respondent) канала UKSupremeCourt
UKSC 2020/0081
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
The Appellant was born female but underwent several operations that were successful in achieving the desired status of "non-gendered." From 1995 onwards the Appellant has been in contact with Government Departments to seek to persuade the Government that a passport should be issued to the Appellant without the necessity of making a declaration of being either "male" or "female". This could be achieved by a third box being added to the passport application form allowing a person to mark that box with an "X" indicating gender "unspecified".
The Government refused to do so but conducted internal reviews to consider whether policy change was required. Its position throughout the proceedings has been that the current passport policy should not be considered in isolation, but as a part of a more fundamental review, which has begun but has not yet been completed.
The Appellant filed judicial review proceedings challenging the Government’s passport policy. The judicial review was dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Appellant appeals to this court.
The issues are:
Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in its conclusion that Her Majesty’s Passport Office’s Policy that (i) an applicant for a passport must declare their gender/sex as being either male or female
(ii) a passport will only be issued bearing a male ("M") or female ("F") indicator in the gender/sex field on the face of the passport and will not be issued with an "unspecified" ("X") gender marker does not unjustifiably breach articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR").
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal. Lord Reed gives the sole judgment, with which the other Justices agree.
More information is available on our website.
Видео R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v SSHD (Respondent) канала UKSupremeCourt
Показать
Комментарии отсутствуют
Информация о видео
Другие видео канала
R (on the app. of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Forest of Dean District CouncilCommissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart & Son Ltd (Scotland)In the matter of NY (A Child)Hastings Borough Council (Appellant) v Manolete Partners Plc (Respondent)Swearing-in of Lord Lloyd-Jones as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United KingdomUK Supreme Court Judgments 6th February 2013 - Part 1R (on applications of Haney, Kaiyam, Massey and Robinson) v The Secretary of State for JusticeIn the matter of B (A child)R (on the app. of Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and SkillsUK Supreme Court Judgments 24th July 2013 - Part 1Barnardo's (Appellant) v Buckinghamshire and others (Respondents)UK Supreme Court Judgments 17th April 2013 - Part 2UK Supreme Court Judgment 15th May 2013Dryden and others (Appellants) v Johnson Matthey Plc (Respondent)Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Judgment 13th May 2014-Part 1R (on the app. of Rotherham Borough Council & others) v Secretary of State for B.I.S.DB Symmetry Ltd and another (Respondents) v Swindon Borough Council (Appellant)Robinson (formerly JR (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentP (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent)NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SAPST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and another v O W Bunker Malta Limited and another