Case Study Relevant to R (Application on Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development

This case study discusses the appeal raised by Steinfeld and Keidan in respect of entering into a civil partnership with each other and the issues related to the Civil Partnership Act.

JUDGEMENT

Table of Contents
CASE STUDY RELEVANT TO R (APPLICATION ON STEINFELD AND KEIDAN) V
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT......................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

CASE STUDY RELEVANT TO R (APPLICATION ON STEINFELD AND
KEIDAN) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
In this case study, the appeal is raised by the Steinfeld and Keidan in respect of entering
into the civil partnership with each other. As the main reason of enacting their partnership
between the civil partner is relating to giving liability to the person having same sex. As in recent
times, the person are not accepted in country which are bound with same sex or also decided to
extend their relationship with each other in future1. Thus, the main reason of enacting this law is
relating to giving them liability to stay freely in country and also live their normal life in respect
of attaining goal in any way.
Civil partnership Act, 2004 was formed in respect of agreeing or legally accepting the
relationship between the same sex in context of undertaking their relationship seriously. Thus,
the approval is given in respect of signing the document with the evidence of two witnesses
which is holding the right to agree such relationship2. The main reason of designing this act is
that the rights are given to the person of same sex who wish to stay together in near future. In
context of amending the existing act related to civil partnership act, 2004, it is amended with the
marriage (Same sex couples) act, 20133. As the norms, rights and benefits are same which is
mentioned in the CPA. AS the reason behind this act is that they give choices to the parties in
respect of making their relationship legal or prefer to get married. But the choices are only made
for the same sex and not for heterosexual couples.
1 Hayward, Andy. "Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time:
R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International
Development." The Modern Law Review (2019).
2 R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International
Development: [2018] UKSC 32: Supreme Court (England and Wales): Hale, President, Kerr,
Wilson, Reed, Black JJSC. 2019. Online. Available
through:<https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article-abstract/7/3/575/5116200?
redirectedFrom=fulltext>.
3 Opposite-sex civil partnerships: Steinfeld. 2019.Online. Available through:
<https://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2018/06/29/opposite-sex-civil-partnerships-
steinfeld/>.

In respect of present case study, the case outlines the matter related to undertaking
different sex couples as Steinfeld and Keidan which wish to enter into the Civil partnership act in
respect of getting legality on their relationship. As they are not willing to get married under such
act. They are dating each other for the longer time and also had two children. Thus, is such
manner the cause of action is identified in respect of not discriminating any person as it is
mentioned under Article 14 that there must be prohibition of discrimination between any of the
caste, person or sex. Thus, as per this case study the issue is raised regarding the rights which is
mentioned under the civil partnerships Act as the liability is given to the person of same sex
which are in relationship and planning to give legality to their relationship. But the rules are
imposed under this act that they violated the right of the different sex person to take in charges in
securing the rights under the CPA.
The proceeding is undertaken under the England and Wales court of appeals which is the
civil division and in which the major decision are given in respect of matter related to civil suits.
As the appellant is raised by the parties in respect of giving liability to the different sex person to
get rights under the CPA but the secretary of state for international development is in favour of
the rights which is protected under this act is it is designed for the person of same sex in respect
of securing their rights in country4. As the issue arises in respect of inequality between the person
in respect of attaining the relationship between the same sex. From the state point of view, the
people not accept the relationship of the person of same sex, thus through this aspects they
protects the right of the person in respect of living freely in country and also interacting with any
other person without any boundation.
Thus, to reviews this case study, the judgement is to be given by the court in which the
judges had different perspective regarding this case study. The judgement to the high court
judges are made by viewing the evidences of the case study which the major focus is on Article 8
and article 14. Article 8 is related to right to get respect for private and family life and Article 14
states that no person is to be discriminated on the bases of caste, culture, sex, religion, region or
any other perspective5. They had the rights to maintain dignity in country by getting respect from
4 Aloni, Erez. "Legal and Policy Battles Over Same-Sex Relationships." In Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2019.
5 S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n i n S t e i n f e l d a n d K e i d a n v S e c r e t a r y
o f S t a t e f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t : T h e C i v i l P a r t n e r s h i p A c t

the people. As the judgement is supported by 5 justices of the supreme court in which the major
support of the decision is given by the Lord Kerr in respect of giving the declaration on
incompatibility. As they feel that statues is incompatible in respect of applying the provision of
European convention on human rights act. Thus, the right of the person are protected under the
article 14 and thus from, the given judgement of the high court, they agree that the appellant are
rights. As every person are equal in the eyes of the laws and thus equal laws are imposed in
respect of securing their interest in the country. Thus, in respect of marriages undertaken in
context of same sex, the rights are given in respect of living freely in country and also there is no
interaction between undertaking any of the matters in country.
The issue which is raised against the state in respect of discrimination is to be justified by
them in respect of undertaking the matter related to European convention in respect of
declaration of incompatibility. But the major issue which outlined is relating to if the civil
partnership Act is wound up in respect of undertaking any such new member of same sex than it
results in not undertaking the matter which is discussed in Article 8. As this may affects the right
of the person in respect of differentiating them from others. But the major benefits which they
undertaken is relating to reducing the inequality in country. Through this aspects, it secures the
right of the person if they are marrying with the same sex.
i s i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h A r t i c l e s 1 4 a n d 8 o f t h e E C H R . 2019. Online.
Available through: <http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/news/supreme-court-decision-in-
steinfeld-and-keidan-v-secretary-of-state-for-international-development-the-civil-partnership-
act-is-incompatible-with-articles-14-and-8-of-the-echr>.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Aloni, Erez. "Legal and Policy Battles Over Same-Sex Relationships." In Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Politics. 2019.
Hayward, Andy. "Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on
the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International
Development." The Modern Law Review (2019).
Online:
Opposite-sex civil partnerships: Steinfeld. 2019.Online. Available through:
<https://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2018/06/29/opposite-sex-civil-partnerships-
steinfeld/>.
R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International
Development: [2018] UKSC 32: Supreme Court (England and Wales): Hale, President,
Kerr, Wilson, Reed, Black JJSC. 2019. Online. Available
through:<https://academic.oup.com/ojlr/article-abstract/7/3/575/5116200?
redirectedFrom=fulltext>.
S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n i n S t e i n f e l d a n d K e i d a n v S e c r e t a r y o f
S t a t e f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t : T h e C i v i l P a r t n e r s h i p
A c t i s i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h A r t i c l e s 1 4 a n d 8 o f t h e E C H R . 2019.
Online. Available through: <http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/news/supreme-court-
decision-in-steinfeld-and-keidan-v-secretary-of-state-for-international-development-the-
civil-partnership-act-is-incompatible-with-articles-14-and-8-of-the-echr>.