Lack of gender neutral option on passport forms: no breach of human rights –

12 March 2020 by

R (on the application of Christie Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department with Human Rights Watch intervening [2020] EWCA Civ 363 – read judgment

When we apply for a passport, we are generally asked to state on the form whether we are a man or a woman, and this is generally reflected in our passports. However, in our modern day and age, there are now more than two genders – some people can choose to define as gender neutral, essentially meaning that they don’t like to describe themselves using the normal terms of “man” or “woman”. MX Elan-Cane is one of those individuals. They sued the Home Office because there was no “X” (as in, no gender neutral) option on the passport form as it was a breach of their Human Rights. The High Court said that yes, this engaged Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention (the right to private and family life), but the current passport policy did not breach that right. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court, both that this engaged Article 8, but that the rights to a private life were not breached here. 

Reasoning behind the High Court’s decision

Jeremy Baker J at first instance, noting that MX Elan-Cane had been detached from their assigned gender for most of their life, and that gender is an important factor in everyone’s personal identity, found that the underlying policy was rational and justified, meaning that the claimant’s Article 8 rights were engaged, but not breached. 

In the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of a gender-neutral passport cannot be considered in isolation, as it is part of a wider effort to achieve recognition of a person’s gender identity. There is no positive obligation on the Government to provide an X marker in a passport, so the current policy is not a breach of Article 8. 


There has been much work on this issue before. As both the High Court and Court of Appeal noted, the Women and Equalities Committee in Parliament, as part of an inquiry into transgender rights, recommended that the Government should create a third gender, allowing people who do not identify as either of the two pre-existing genders to identify themselves to others. The Government responded that it would keep the matter under consideration, but was noncommittal as to whether it would implement the changes recommended. At the European level, a report for the Council of Europe found that there were examples of states who issue gender neutral ID documents and that an X marker could be available to those who self-defined as gender neutral, but only in respect of ID documents.

Turning to the details of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, the Court agreed that Article 8 was engaged because the case revolved around the appellant’s identity as a person, thus engaging their right to a private life (protected by Article 8). 

As to whether there is a positive obligation on the state to provide such a marker, the Court agreed with the first instance judge that the state has a wide margin of appreciation in respect of balancing private rights against public interest – even where it involves a person’s gender identity. The Court also found that the use of a gender identity marker is a broader issue, concerned with more than identity documents. Indeed, King LJ makes it explicitly clear that

the reality is that, whilst this case is limited to passports, the driver for change is the broad notion of respect for gender identity.

….The passport issue cannot reasonably be considered in isolation. 

The Court of Appeal noted that there is no consensus as to the use of gender identity markers throughout the European states party to the European Convention – presumably the states’ position identified in the report identified above does not equate to a “consensus”. The Court did recognise that there has been a development in Trans rights since the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Rees v UK (decided in 1986) and Goodwin v UK (decided in 2001). For example, in Rees the ECHR said, “there is at present little common ground between the Contracting States in this area and that, generally speaking, the law appears to be in a transitional stage”. In Goodwin, 25 years after Rees, the European Court said that it would review state’s approaches “in the present conditions”, thus showing that there definitely has been some change in societal approaches. In a later decision in 2011 (Schalk v Austria) the Court said that there is an “emerging European consensus” regarding the recognition of a third gender. As King LJ concludes regarding consensus, there is definitely “a trend” towards recognising a third gender, but there is not yet a defined consensus. As an example of this trend, the Netherlands started issuing its first gender-neutral passports. On the subject of the margin of appreciation, and related to whether there is a consensus, the Court of Appeal commented that it seems that “the margin of appreciation can both vary over time as society evolves and consensus hardens”

 What next?

Following the dismissal of their appeal, the appellant is now going to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. The question is whether they will do so. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, so now it depends on the Supreme Court itself. That Court is selective in the cases it chooses, only taking those cases that raise a point of law of general public importance and where the main point of law is an arguable one.

The prospective point of law on which any appeal could be based – namely, whether the lack of an X marker in a passport breaches human rights – may be one of general importance, since, as the Court of Appeal and High Court both recognised, gender identity is important to a person’s self-identity, which itself is important to the idea of being human. The tricky bit is whether the point of law is “arguable”. It may be said that the fact that the claimant was granted permission to bring a judicial review, and then permission to appeal, shows that the point may be arguable to some extent .

Ruairi Hipkin holds a bachelor’s degree in law and politics and a Masters in international human rights and humanitarian law.

Further reading

BBC News article on the decision

BBC News article on the original High Court decision

BBC article explaining why MX Elan-Cane is campaigning for gender-neutral passports


  1. Andrew says:

    I would have no problem with this if the application form had a declaration saying:

    1. I understand and accept that some foreign embassies and immigration staff and airlines will not accept this passport.

    2. I also understand and accept that even if they do, they may snigger.

    3. I also understand and accept that if they reject my passport or snigger at me – and especially if I react and there is a row – the British consul cannot help me.

    Britannia no longer rules the waves and she certainly doesn’t rule what happens at the immigration desk at an airport in Ruritania!

  2. Big kate says:

    If I remember correctly UK blue passports either didn’t have a sex coding section in them or before they switched to the red European version the sex information was left blank if you were transexual. It really hacked me off when the new passports came in and suddenly sex coding was required. I still don’t understand why that information is needed, in these days of much more detailed biometric data

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.




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 costs costs budgets Court of Protection 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 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


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: