Introduction

The landmark case Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for International Development ([2018] UKSC 32) addressed the issue of discriminatory treatment between same-sex and different-sex couples under the United Kingdom's Civil Partnership Act (CPA) 2004. The appellants, Karon Monaghan and Dan Squires, a different-sex couple, sought the right to enter into a civil partnership, citing their conscientious objection to marriage. This case questioned whether the existing legislation, which restricted civil partnerships to same-sex couples, violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically articles 8 and 14, which protect the right to private and family life and prohibit discrimination, respectively.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, declaring that sections 1 and 3 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which exclusively allow same-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships, are incompatible with article 14 read in conjunction with article 8 of the ECHR. The Court held that the government's justification for the discriminatory treatment—citing the need for further consultation and assessment of societal attitudes—was insufficient. The ruling emphasized that the government must eliminate the identified inequality without undue delay and cannot rely on extended periods of evaluation as a legitimate reason to maintain discriminatory practices.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to underpin its reasoning:

• Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal (1999) – Confirmed that sexual orientation is a protected ground under article 14.
• Schalk and Kopf v Austria (2010) – Addressed the margin of appreciation in recognizing partnerships and highlighted the evolving nature of rights.
• Vallianatos v Greece (2013) – Established that in cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation, any justified measures must meet strict scrutiny, ensuring that measures are necessary and proportionate.
• M v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2006) – Demonstrated limitations on the state's ability to justify discriminatory measures even when societal attitudes are in flux.
• Bellinger v Bellinger (2003) – Emphasized the court's duty to formally record incompatibilities between domestic law and the ECHR.
• R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice (2015) – Discussed the principle of reticence, especially in sensitive social policy areas, but clarified its limited application.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the four-stage test of proportionality to assess whether the differential treatment was justified:

1. Legitimate Aim: The government claimed the aim was to gather sufficient information to address the inequality, a position the Court found untenable as it did not directly address the discrimination.
2. Rational Connection: Even if a legitimate aim were accepted, the Court assessed the government's approach did not effectively connect to resolving the discrimination.
3. Less Intrusive Means: The Court identified that immediate elimination of discrimination was possible through abolishing civil partnerships or extending them to different-sex couples, rendering the government's prolonged hold unjustifiable.
4. Fair Balance: The ongoing discrimination imposed significant and indefinite disadvantages on different-sex couples, outweighing any purported community interests.

Additionally, the Court dismissed the government's reliance on the "margin of appreciation" doctrine, clarifying that national courts must independently assess justifications without deferring to executive discretion in matters of fundamental rights.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the UK's legal landscape, particularly in the realm of family law and human rights. It mandates the immediate rectification of discriminatory practices, compelling the government to either extend civil partnership rights to different-sex couples or abolish the existing framework. The decision reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding equality and non-discrimination, setting a precedent for future cases involving entrenched legislative disparities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 8 of the ECHR

Protects an individual's right to respect for their private and family life, home, and correspondence. Interference with this right by public authorities is only permissible under specific conditions.

Article 14 of the ECHR

Prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention. It ensures that all individuals receive equal treatment under the law without discrimination on specified grounds, including sexual orientation.

Margin of Appreciation

A doctrine allowing national governments some leeway in how they implement certain rights, acknowledging that domestic authorities may be better positioned to assess their own societal needs. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this margin does not extend to justifying fundamental discrimination.

Proportionality Test

A legal principle used to assess whether a measure that limits a right is appropriate and justified. It involves evaluating the necessity and balance between the rights affected and the aim pursued.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for International Development marks a significant advancement in ensuring equality and non-discrimination in the realm of civil partnerships. By invalidating sections of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 that restricted civil partnerships to same-sex couples, the judgment reinforces the principles of equality under the law and the judiciary's role in safeguarding human rights. This ruling not only facilitates immediate legal rectification but also sets a clear standard for future legislative and judicial actions to promote fairness and equality within the UK's legal framework.