Appeals Court rules on transsexual's birth certificate

The Court of Appeal decided that although the birth certificate of a person, born a man, should indicate he was now a woman there was no need to explain that such a sex change followed surgery.

The Court of Appeal, composed of Chief Justice Vincent DeGaetano, Mr Justice Joseph Filletti and Mr Justice Franco Depasquale, has upheld an appeal filed by the Director of Public Registry dealing with the registration of amendments to birth certificates in the case of an individual who underwent gender reassignment surgery.

The court referred to a judgment by the First Hall of the Civil Court which had decided upon a writ of summons filed by a man who had become a woman following surgery. Plaintiff, whose name cannot be published by court order, had requested the Court to order a correction to his birth certificate whereby his sex would be indicated as female and his name would be changed to the female one he had used both prior to and after the gender reassignment surgery.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had upheld plaintiff's writ and had ordered the Director of Public Registry to include an annotation to the birth certificate so as to certify that plaintiff was female and bore a female name. The court had also ordered the director to declare, in the annotation, that the correction was being made in virtue of the judgment and after plaintiff had undergone surgery.

The director had appealed on the grounds that the original birth certificate was not incorrect but had recorded a historic fact that was correct at the time of plaintiff's birth. The Court of Appeal was requested to overturn the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.

In its judgment, the appellate court noted that although the law did not allow the correction of a birth certificate unless it contained a mistake there was nothing in the law that prevented an annotation to be made to the certificate if this was opportune. Plaintiff's birth certificate was correct for at the time of his birth he was a biological male. However, the Court of Appeal felt it had to order certain annotations that reflected the developments that had taken place from the date of birth.

Yet, there was no need for mention to be made of the gender reassignment surgery that had led plaintiff to become a female.

The Court of Appeal concluded its judgment by ordering that the annotation to be made to plaintiff's birth certificate had only to refer to the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court in virtue of which plaintiff was to be registered as a female. No mention of the surgery was to be included in the annotation.