The High Court in Northern Ireland has held that the right to privacy of a transgender man was violated by reference to a previous civil partnership appearing on his publicly-accessible marriage certificate.
A transgender man, who has been granted anonymity, applied for a gender recognition certificate in order to secure his legal status as a man in Northern Ireland. Sex reassignment surgery is not required for a change in gender to be officially recognised however, the man did have to annul a civil partnership between himself and his partner. The initial civil partnership classed both couples as females. The couple subsequently got married after the gender recognition certificate was obtained, however, the marriage certificate when produced referenced the original civil partnership.
The applicant argued that the provisions which allowed for marriage records to note his previous civil partnership on a publicly-accessible marriage certificate amounted to a breach to his right to privacy, as in made clear to the public that one of the couple had a different gender history. According to the applicant, such breach of his right to privacy was for no lawful or justifiable purpose, with the solution being to change his status in the marriage certificate from ’civil partnership dissolved’ to ’single’.
The Department of Finance and Personnel, which has responsibility for public records, believed that “the marriage notice is intended to assist the registrar in determining whether there are any legal impediments to the marriage and the Department believes the inclusion of status in the solemn declaration will help to concentrate minds and ensure compliance with the legal requirements in respect of the marriage.”
The Court found that the creation of a public record that contains information which creates a small but significant risk that the applicant’s previous gender history may be revealed was not necessary or proportionate to any of the legitimate aims pursued by the Department. Therefore there was no justification for the breach of the applicant’s Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. While the Court didn’t agree that the status should be reflected as ‘single’, it felt the aims sought by the Department may be achieved in several ways including allowing couples to elect whether the status entry is to be recorded publicly or privately, or conflating certain statuses.
Click here for full judgement.