High Court Rules Against Non-Binary Gender Recognition in Landmark Case: Implications for Transgender Rights

Citation: [2024] EWHC 54 (Admin)
Judgment on


In the case of Ryan Castellucci, R (on the application of) v Gender Recognition Panel: 2024, the High Court of Justice was tasked with determining the legal scope and interpretation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) in relation to non-binary gender recognition. The central legal question revolved around whether the Gender Recognition Panels (GRP) are mandated to issue a gender recognition certificate (GRC) to an individual who has obtained legal recognition of a non-binary gender under the law of a state outside of the United Kingdom. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the key legal principles applied in this seminal case, the application of which has significant implications for transgender and non-binary rights in the UK.

Key Facts

Ryan Castellucci, diagnosed with gender dysphoria and recognized as non-binary by the State of California, sought a GRC from the UK GRP that reflected this status. UK legislation and GRP practice, however, operate on the assumption of binary gender identifiers, male and female. The GRP refused to issue a non-binary GRC, prompting Castellucci’s legal challenge. Two primary arguments were made: (1) that the GRP misinterpreted the GRA, and (2) if the GRA indeed does not permit non-binary recognition, then it is discriminatory and contravenes Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), warranting an interpretation compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) or a declaration of incompatibility.

The judgment centered on key legal principles, notably the statutory interpretation of “gender” within the GRA’s provisions and the application of anti-discrimination provisions under Article 14 of the ECHR.

Interpretation of “Gender” in the GRA

The court thoroughly dissected the lexical and contextual connotations of “gender” in both domestic and foreign application scenarios under GRA sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b), respectively. The judges concluded a consistent, binary interpretation of “gender” was intended by Parliament throughout the GRA, encompassing only “male” and “female,” and negating the notion that it could be extended to include non-binary identifications under foreign law provision.

Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR

The case implicated both privacy rights under Article 8 and anti-discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR. Although Article 8 was not claimed by Castellucci, its principle was indirectly engaged as Article 14 claims are contingent upon the existence of rights falling within the ambit of other Convention rights. Nevertheless, the analysis primarily hinged on the application of Article 14, examining whether a comparable difference in treatment occurred based on status as a non-binary person, and if so, whether it was justifiable.

Justification and Margin of Appreciation

Justification involved balancing individual interests against public interests, particularly addressing legislative consistency and administrative burden. Ultimately, the court found that the state had legitimate reasons and a wide margin of appreciation in this context due to the sensitive and unsettled nature of non-binary gender recognition, internationally and domestically.


The court ruled against Castellucci on both grounds. It was determined that:

  • A GRC under the GRA cannot reflect non-binary status as “gender” within the act is confined to male or female. Consequently, the GRP held no power to issue a non-binary GRC to Castellucci.
  • Any differential treatment stemming from this interpretation was deemed amply justified and did not contravene the ECHR Article 14, as the margin of appreciation granted to the UK was significant given the sensitive ethical considerations and lack of international consensus.


The Ryan Castellucci case underscores the judiciary’s circumspection in extending legal interpretations to accommodate emerging complexities in gender identity, especially in absence of explicit legislative direction. By meticulously analyzing the language of the GRA and considering broader legislatorial intent, the court upheld the binary definition of “gender” within the current statutory framework, thereby aligning legal recognition with historic binary conceptions of gender. The case exemplifies the ongoing challenges within UK law to adapt to shifts in societal understandings of gender identity and status, signaling an area ripe for legislative review and, potentially, reform.

Related Summaries