Case name and citation: 

 R (on the application of McConnell and YY) v Registrar General [2020] EWCA Civ 559. 
Court and Judges: 
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh. 
Parties: 
Appellants: Alfred McConnell and YY.  
Respondent: The registrar general for England and Wales.  
Interested parties: Secretary of state for health and social care, Minister for women and equalities and
Secretary of state for the home department. 
Material facts  
Mr. McConnell who was born with the gender female tried a change her gender and transitioned into
male when he was 22-year-old. He started his testosterone surgery as it was part of his medical
transition and in 2014, he had his double masticatory.  After this he was officially declared as male on his
passport and NHS’s data. Mr McConnell stopped his testosterone treatment in September and started a
fertility treatment at a clinic where he tried to conceive a child through artificial insemination. Because
the process of transition was not fully completed McConnell was in a state to conceive a child.
McConnell applied according to GRA to get a gender recognition certificate which will identify him as
male and got his identity as male on 21 April 2017. Due to GRA he was considered as male and gave
birth to a child through artificial insemination process. This primary claim was for the judicial review and
secondary claim was if domestic law didn’t accept this, they will be opposing the relevant statue and
according to applicant his child rights was being compromised under article 8 and 14 of ECHR article 8
and 14 of ECHR
Question of law/issues: -  
Here Question arises whether it is appropriate that McConnell is the father or gestational parent of YY.
Secondly, is GRA’s interpretation compatible with convention rights. 
Thirdly, Will interpretation oppose ECHR?

Decision: - 
Judges concluded that the appeal of McConnell should be dismissed because there was no violation of
his convention rights and he will call as the mother of YY 
Detail reasoning  
After going all the details and evidence judges of Court of appeal concluded the following results. The
president of High Court considered both appeals of McConnell and concluded that the claim of
McConnell was not right because there was no incompatibility between GRA and convention rights. 
Second claim of McConnell was also thrown out and they concluded that a person who gave birth is
called as mother and word mother is not gender specific. They also concluded that the effect of s.12
GRA is both retrospectively and prospective which mean even GRA don’t affect the actual gender. This
verdict was endorsed by the court of appeal. There were two matter which were revolving around this
case first was whether the decision taken by respondent in this case was different from the past decided
cases. On the behalf of appellant, it was said that there had been a volte face but this was denied by the
respondent. Second matter was that there was an argument going on about HFEA 1990 that treatment
given McConnel could be lawfully given to a man as opposed to a woman. Court concluded that there is
no dispute found regarding HFEA in present case between both parties and neither authority or clinic
has taken part in the proceeding so court will not discuss about this matter. Later on, it was
emphaticised by the applicant that section 12 of GRA only had retrospective effect and but this was
concluded that it had both prospective and retrospective effect. It was explained that certificate issued
by GRA does not restrict events that took place either back or after it acquisition. This was the
interpretation was right if the purpose was prospective only then its parliament could had mentioned it
and GRA already has a provision in section 9 of the statue. The language used in section 12 is very similar
to wording in other sections of GRA this also indicate that it can be used in both directions.
Appellant also urged to court that interpretation should be made keeping contemporary morals and
social norms in mind. Here statement of Lord Bingham was used by the court to support the argument
that s 12 has both prospective and retrospective effect. The statement supported that mother word is
no longer a gender specific and if argument is that mother would should be replaced by the father word
then according to Lord Bingham statement dogs can’t be constructed as cats. Ms Hannah invited the
court to give a restrictive approach to the interpretation of section 12 and she said the main purpose of
section 12 was to ensure continuity. The explanatory notes did not show any impact because the court
stated that parliament wanted to do so they could have added in the statue. The responsibility of court
is to interpret the act and understand the intent which is given in the statue rather than the presumed
intent of the minister during the process of making the bill. Court further stated that if parliament had
that intend, they could have mention in first place but at this point it doesn’t seems like they have
intended it. Respondent in that stage was right because by applying the true natural meaning of section
12 GRA had register McConnell as the mother of YY. 
After this interpretation here question arises that whether or not interpretation of section 9 and section
12 led to the problem incompatible with convention rights. The House of Lords in the case of Wilson v.
First County Trust Ltd (No. 2) [2003] UKHL 40; [2004] 1 AC 816, (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead), stated that
the task of the court is to check the compatibility of statue with convention rights which would be done
by determining the legitimate or main aim of making the statue and determine whether it breaches any
rights which are given by convention rights. Court is not concerned with the adequacy of reason put
forward by minister or others for legislation as it proceeded by parliament but court is concerned with
the intent on which statue is passed  
There are a very few incidents where European court of human rights were brought forth in the
proceeding of the court and that led towards the creation of GRA. In Rees v. the UK (1986), case
it was the first time that English legal system was question. Initially the court found that English
local law is incompatible with the convention rights but it was awarded the margin of
appreciation at stage due to no consensus found in council of Europe. Here margin of
appreciation was made narrowed by the court. In Goodwin v. the UK (2002) it was the first-time
court held that there was a violation of convention rights in particular Article 8. This decision
led to the enactment of GRA. In enacting the GRA parliament took a different stance and stated
the person Applying do not need to get a surgery or make any physical transition to get a new
gender which he or she wanted to acquire and it was also mentioned that the person applying
did not need to get GRA for that. After this approach court in Strasbourg in the case of Garcon,
and Nicot v. France decided that this this course taken by the English parliament violates the
convention rights it is oblige for individual to undergo surgical procedure to alter their identity.
In some states it was necessary for a transgender to be sterilised before getting its acquired
gender. This requirement also breaches the article 18 of convention rights and this was not the
position that was taken by the parliament while enacting the GRA. In the case of Goodwin, it
was made clear that UK could no longer claim that the matter falls within margin of
appreciation. There is only one case of X Y and Z vs UK (1997) which concerned to the certificate
of a transgender where x transgender was not refused to enter in the certificate of z (child) at
all by the registrar general. Due to legislative changes X could be register as parents if both Y X
get married. In this case Strasbourg court found that there is no violation of convention rights.
The case the decision of this case was approved by the court of Strasbourg after the approval of
the decision of case of Goodwin.  
 
First of all, there was a question whether there is an interference in the rights of appellant under article
8 or not. Court accepted that there is a violation of the rights under article 8 and court further disused
that whether the word “mother” is gender specific or not. There it was pointed out by the court that s9
has some exceptions and s 12 is one of its exceptions. Most of the purpose law should accept person
gender according to certificate but there is an exception that the person should be treated as having
their gender at the birth. The court further stated that it is not possibly right to say that parliament has
decoupled the concept of mother from gender and in the matter of interference court found that yes
there is an interference as court has found in the case of Goodwin. According to article 8 (2) if the
interference is justified then there will be no issues between the natural interpretation of GRA and
requirements of HRA. But the main question is that is the interference according to law and is there any
legitimate aim for the inference .According to the court there clearly is.  
The last question arises that whether the interference complies with the principle of proportionality. In
the case of Bank Mellat V HM Treasury there are 4 requirements for determination of proportionality.
First is that is there sufficiently important objectives which the measure pursues secondly is their
rational connections between the means chosen and that objective thirdly, are there less intrusive
available?  Is there a fair balance struck between the rights of the individual and the general interests of
the community? In later dissuasions it was made clear that a woman automatically acquires the role of a
parent at the birth of the child and the obligation of a child care also falls on mother side. Even after the
surrogating the birth mother is considered to the true mother of the child after which role of the mother
is passed on to another individuals. In this case the help was taken from a case which was originated in
Germany in which a phrase was used “the mother of a child is the woman who gave birth to it “ 
There is an analogous concept of that apply in domestic law under HRA which we can describe it as
margin of discretion or in other words it allows court to use the reasoning to decide the case based on
their facts moreover court think that it is matter to leave this issue to the parliament, as they would be
touching the domain of parliament if they decide that matter. According to the article 3 (1) of CRC the
best interest of the child should be taken as primary consideration. Since article can't be used
independent issue and article 8 is not violated and there is no incompatibility between section 9 and
section 12 of GRA on their natural interpretation and convention rights. Due to these reasons court
rejected all appeals which was made by the applicant. 
RATIO 
Section 12 of GRA was both retrospective and prospective parliament had made that point clear. The
gender of the person does not alter regardless whether or not they gave GRA. The simple reading of
section 12 seems that it violate the convention rights but due to article 8 (2) the interference was
considered legal. There is no conflict between GRA and ECHR and there was no violation of rights of Mr
McConnell and his son YY under article 8.