R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development [2018]

1. Facts:

• Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, an opposite-sex couple, objected to marriage on ideological grounds but sought legal recognition of their relationship through a civil partnership, which was at that time only available to same-sex couples in the UK.

• They argued that the exclusion of opposite-sex couples from civil partnerships was incompatible with their rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 12 (right to marry) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

• Initially, the High Court dismissed their case, ruling that the issue did not fall within the scope of Article 8, as the couple had the option of marriage if they wanted legal recognition. The court found that the impact on their private life was minimal and that any discrimination was justified by the state’s desire to avoid the unnecessary duplication of legal frameworks.

2. Outcome:

• The Court of Appeal (CoA) held that the case did indeed fall within the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR, recognising that the couple’s right to respect for private and family life was engaged. However, the CoA did not find an immediate need to act, citing the government’s argument that more data was needed before deciding on extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.

• The Supreme Court (SC), however, issued a declaration of incompatibility, ruling that the exclusion of opposite-sex couples from civil partnerships was incompatible with the ECHR. The court rejected the government’s argument about needing more data, stating that Parliament had introduced the inequality and thus could not rely on it to justify inaction. The SC emphasised that the government needed to respond promptly to rectify the discrimination.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Recognition of Civil Partnerships: The ruling marked a significant development in the legal recognition of relationships in the UK, emphasising that civil partnerships should be available to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. This decision reinforced the principle that legal recognition of relationships should not be conditional on adherence to traditional marriage norms.

• Article 8 and Non-Discrimination: The case is a critical example of how Article 8 can be used to challenge discriminatory practices in family law. The Supreme Court’s declaration of incompatibility highlighted that the state cannot maintain unequal treatment between different groups without compelling justification, reinforcing the need for equal access to legal protections.

• Government’s Role and Accountability: The SC’s decision underscored the responsibility of the government to address inequalities that it has created or perpetuated. The court’s rejection of the government’s argument about needing more data signalled that delaying action to correct discrimination was unacceptable, especially when the inequality had already been legislated.

• The Steinfeld Effect: Legal scholar Andy Hayward refers to the broader implications of this case as “The Steinfeld Effect,” cautioning against over-reliance on civil partnerships to address relationship-generated disadvantages. Hayward argues for favouring opt-out regimes, where rights and protections are automatically granted, and individuals can choose to opt out if they do not wish to partake, rather than requiring them to opt in to gain rights. This approach, he suggests, would better address the needs of individuals who reject marriage while ensuring that all are protected under the law.

• Legal and Social Reforms: Following this case, the UK government extended civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, reflecting the decision’s impact on both legal practice and social policy. The ruling contributed to ongoing discussions about how best to balance traditional institutions like marriage with the evolving needs and values of modern society.