High Court challenge to sperm donors' anonymity

A woman and a young girl's parents went to the High Court yesterday in a test case seeking the right to know more about their sperm-donor fathers.

Joanna Rose, 29, argued that the law which protects the anonymity of her biological father also deprived her of important information about her own identity.

The parents of the six-year-old girl wish to raise her in a spirit of openness about her background and to be able to answer questions she may have about her father.

For Ms Rose, Monica Carss-Frisk QC told the judge: "She has for a long time sought to obtain more information about her donor in order to attempt to resolve her feelings of incompleteness, anger, frustration and hurt."

Ms Rose grew up at a time when donor insemination was carried out in secrecy and on the basis that the donor should always remain strictly anonymous. She and the parents of the girl are asking the court for non-identifying information about the donors and, ultimately, the setting up of a voluntary contact register, which could help tens of thousands of donor offspring to trace their genetic parents.

Their lawyers argue that without full knowledge of their genetic inheritance people can never truly know who they are.

The claim is based on Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which guarantees respect for private and family life, including the right to form a personal identity. They also argue that under the anti-discrimination provision of the HRA, donor offspring should have the same rights as adopted children to trace their biological parents.

The case, which is expected to finish tomorrow, is being vigorously defended by the Department of Health. Although ministers have indicated a softening in their position on the question of blanket anonymity, they say will make no formal announcement until they have published a response to their own consultation document on the issue next year.

Nigel Griffin, for the Government, told the judge, Mr Justice Scott Baker, yesterday: "It is apparent that nothing less than knowledge of the donors' identity is likely to come close to assuaging the strong emotions experienced by some offspring."

Mr Griffin pointed to the nightmare administrative task that would be required to "disentangle" identifying details from the non-identifying information wanted by Miss Rose and the girl's parents.

He added: "The mere fact that a person is a member of your family does not mean that you have the right of access to private information about him."

Since 1991, more than 11,000 donor insemination children ave been conceived in Britain. Their details are registered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), but are not publicly available.

Liberty, the human rights group backing both Ms Rose and the six-year-old girl, has said the failure of the state to set up a voluntary mechanism for exchange of information between willing offspring and donors involved breaches of the claimants' human rights.

But it has stressed that there is no question of seeking the compulsory disclosure of identifying information. This argument implicitly recognises the rights of men who gave sperm believing there would be no obligations or duties on their part after they left the fertility clinic. The idea that a donor's biological offspring could turn up on their doorstep many years later and make emotional or even financial demands upon them could have disastrous results, ministers have argued.

But for Joanna Rose these arguments have been rendered academic. She learnt recently that records relating to her own conception had been lost or destroyed. But she says she still wants to bring the case because, if she succeeds in court, the ruling will benefit thousands of children who are being denied the right to know their true personal identities.