Case Brief on Foy v An tArd Chlaraitheoir [2012] 2 IR 1
Katherine Goff 14435362
Facts
The facts of this case are that Lydia Foy, a male to female transsexual sought a change to her birth cert to show that her gender had changed. She began correspondence with the Registrar General in 1997 but her request was denied. She brought proceedings against the Registrar General as a result of his refusal.
Procedural Posture
The case was first heard in 2002 in the High Court. The Court found against Ms Foy. Ms Foy was in the process of appealing this decision to the Supreme Court when there was significant developments that could affect the case. Firstly the Civil Registration Act of 2004 came into effect, secondly the European Convention on Human Rights …show more content…
McKenchie put forward that the Goodwin judgement was prospective in nature and could not be used retrospectively. In July 2002 when the case was originally decided the Goodwin decision had not yet been reached. This meant that you could not interpret the civil registration Act 2004 in light of the decision. Prior to the Goodwin case, i.e. when the Foy case was first decided it was in each country’s margin of appreciation to decide gender based on biological factors in the context of birth and marriages. Thus it was not ultra vires of the Registrar General to refuse the Applicant’s …show more content…
He began by discussing case law up to the Goodwin judgement. The first case that came relating to the rights of transsexuals that came before the ECHR was Van Oosterwijk v Belgium. While the court did not find in favour of Van Oosterwijk it said that member states had a duty to review the difficulties of Transsexuals in mind. This was repeated in the judgements in Rees v United Kingdom, Cossey v United Kingdom and Sheffield and Horsham v United Kingdom. It is important to note that the number of dissenting judges grew steadily each time a case was put forward.
In relation to Goodwin v United Kingdom McKenchie said that if the material facts of the Goodwin and Foy cases are the same then Ms Foy deserves to have her acquired gender recognised in light of Goodwin.
He rejects the claim that they are different because the Goodwin decision does not consider the fact that Ms Foy has a wife and two daughters. In fact Kristina Goodwin was also previously married to a woman and has children from that marriage. He also rejects the claim that the discrimination faced by Goodwin was more
Katherine Goff 14435362
Facts
The facts of this case are that Lydia Foy, a male to female transsexual sought a change to her birth cert to show that her gender had changed. She began correspondence with the Registrar General in 1997 but her request was denied. She brought proceedings against the Registrar General as a result of his refusal.
Procedural Posture
The case was first heard in 2002 in the High Court. The Court found against Ms Foy. Ms Foy was in the process of appealing this decision to the Supreme Court when there was significant developments that could affect the case. Firstly the Civil Registration Act of 2004 came into effect, secondly the European Convention on Human Rights …show more content…
McKenchie put forward that the Goodwin judgement was prospective in nature and could not be used retrospectively. In July 2002 when the case was originally decided the Goodwin decision had not yet been reached. This meant that you could not interpret the civil registration Act 2004 in light of the decision. Prior to the Goodwin case, i.e. when the Foy case was first decided it was in each country’s margin of appreciation to decide gender based on biological factors in the context of birth and marriages. Thus it was not ultra vires of the Registrar General to refuse the Applicant’s …show more content…
He began by discussing case law up to the Goodwin judgement. The first case that came relating to the rights of transsexuals that came before the ECHR was Van Oosterwijk v Belgium. While the court did not find in favour of Van Oosterwijk it said that member states had a duty to review the difficulties of Transsexuals in mind. This was repeated in the judgements in Rees v United Kingdom, Cossey v United Kingdom and Sheffield and Horsham v United Kingdom. It is important to note that the number of dissenting judges grew steadily each time a case was put forward.
In relation to Goodwin v United Kingdom McKenchie said that if the material facts of the Goodwin and Foy cases are the same then Ms Foy deserves to have her acquired gender recognised in light of Goodwin.
He rejects the claim that they are different because the Goodwin decision does not consider the fact that Ms Foy has a wife and two daughters. In fact Kristina Goodwin was also previously married to a woman and has children from that marriage. He also rejects the claim that the discrimination faced by Goodwin was more