Key Facts
- •Ryan Castellucci, born male in California, identifies as non-binary and was legally recognized as such by California.
- •Castellucci applied for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in the UK specifying their gender as non-binary.
- •The Gender Recognition Panel (GRP) refused, stating the UK system is binary (male/female).
- •Castellucci challenged the GRP's decision, arguing misinterpretation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) and discrimination under Article 14 ECHR.
- •The case involved judicial review, an appeal under the GRA, and a Part 8 claim (stayed).
Legal Principles
Interpretation of statutes: Courts must ascertain and give effect to the true meaning of what Parliament has said, considering the overall purpose and historical context.
Quintavalle v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. A claim requires showing: (i) ambit of another Convention right; (ii) difference in treatment; (iii) difference based on status; (iv) lack of objective justification.
In re McLaughlin [2018] UKSC 48
The margin of appreciation is particularly wide in relation to positive obligations, especially where sensitive moral or ethical issues and a lack of international consensus exist.
Elan-Cane v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 56
Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA): Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 20, 21, and 25 were central to the court's interpretation.
Gender Recognition Act 2004
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court held that the GRA, on its proper construction, refers to a binary concept of gender (male/female). The GRP therefore lacked the power to issue a non-binary GRC. The Article 14 claim failed as the difference in treatment was objectively justified by the need for legislative and administrative coherence, the administrative costs of change, and the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the UK on this sensitive issue.
Permission granted to apply for judicial review on Ground 1 (misinterpretation of the GRA), but ultimately dismissed.
The court found the Ground 1 argument arguable, but ultimately rejected it based on its interpretation of the GRA.
Section 8 appeal dismissed.
The court agreed with the GRP's lack of power to issue a non-binary GRC.