Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to consider same-sex marriage challenge

25 February 2018 by

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland will sit this week to consider an appeal against the refusal of the High Court to give recognition to the marriage of a gay man from Northern Ireland who had married his husband in London under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The original decision by Mr Justice O’Hara was published last August and reported as Re X [2017] NIFam 12. Under the terms of the 2013 Act, same sex marriage in England and Wales is treated for the purposes of the law of Northern Ireland as a civil partnership (in accordance with the Civil Partnership Act 2004). The Petitioner wants recognition of his marriage as such and argues that the denial of recognition is a breach of his Convention Rights.

When civil partnerships were being introduced for England, Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland was going through one of its periods of direct rule from London. The UK government embarked upon a lightning consultation exercise and subsequently decided to include Northern Ireland in what came to be the Civil Partnership Act 2004. That meant that civil partnership was a UK wide arrangement. In fact, by a quirk of the law, the first civil partnership ceremony in the UK took place in Belfast, between Shannon Sickles and Grainne Close (who have also been refused a High Court Declaration that they can get married in the North). 

Marriage is devolved under the terms of the devolution settlements. By the time the government in London decided to introduce same-sex marriage there was a more assertive government in Scotland and so separate Acts were passed in London and Edinburgh extending marriage to same sex couples. The Northern Ireland Assembly neither enacted same sex marriage themselves nor passed a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) allowing the Westminster Parliament to do so. In fact the only LCM that was approved was one that allowed the enactment of the provision for same sex marriages in England and Wales to be recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.

The failure to provide for same sex marriage has proved very controversial in the North – especially since opinion polls show it receives strong support in Northern Ireland and has received the support of the majority of members of the Stormont Assembly. Legislation has failed because it received only minority support in the Unionist Community and a Petition of Concern was used to block it.

Mr Justice O’Hara decided that the recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including Oliari v Italy [2015], shows that the Human Rights Court has not arrived at a position that the Convention mandates the extension of marriage to same sex couples. He concluded that it was not open to him to give an interpretation of the Convention which is quite different from that of the Strasbourg Court – and purported to follow the “Ullah” principle which he described as operating thus:

save in special circumstances I must follow [the] clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.

This caused some surprise as it did not appear consistent with the way the Courts had treated the issue of adoption of children in Northern Ireland by unmarried different-sex and same-sex couples.

It is hard not to comment that O’Hara J had caused surprise by taking 20 months to hand down the original eleven page decision after the close of argument in the original hearing (the Sickles Judgment was four pages). It is hoped that the Court of Appeal might be somewhat speedier. In any event the case seems destined to head to the UK Supreme Court, assuming that the issue is not resolved in the meantime by either the UK Parliament (a Private Member’s Bill is due to be introduced in March) or legislation in Stormont – provided it returns to work.

1 comment;


  1. Kyle says:

    Based on your educational guess: If and when the legislation to extend SSM into Northern Ireland is formally introduced and voted on, do you think that certain parties in the UK Parliament (e.g., Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru (Wales), the Green Party of England and Wales) would either not take part in the vote or abstained altogether since the legislation would not [directly] affect the country/countries in which they [mainly] operate in? Would this affect the number of votes needed to pass the legislation?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: