This case involves an application made by interested media parties, to remove a claimant, TT (a trans male), from the protection of an anonymity order, but retain a bar on directly naming his child, YY. The anonymity order was made in a judicial review case in which the claimant is challenging the legal requirement that he be named as the mother on his child’s birth certificate because he gave birth to the baby after receiving a Gender Recognition Certificate.
Held: The present anonymity order would be varied so that the Claimant’s name could be published in reports of the proceedings, although the child could not be named. The Claimant had been involved in making a documentary film about his experience of being a pregnant trans man and which revealed his identity and had been shown at film festivals and would be broadcast on national TV. In circumstances where the Claimant had himself put such information into the public domain, the court held that the public interest in media reports being able to identify the claimant as the claimant in the JR claim outweighed his residual Article 8 rights in not being identified as the claimant (despite the additional distress and intrusion that could flow from such reports). Similarly, the court was not persuaded that the publication of identifying information would be, of itself, sufficient to engage the child’s Art 8 rights and, if it did, it would be outweighed by the public interest in the media reports naming the claimant.
Catrin Evans QC and Sarah Hannett were involved in this case.