Named persons in the supreme court: the Christian Institute and Ors v Lord Advocate

Christopher McCorkindale, Frankie McCarthy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Scottish family law cases seldom find their way to the Supreme Court, but this particular challenge to the competence of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 seemed destined to make it there from its inception. The decision handed down is significant in two respects. First, in a point that may be of greater political than legal interest, it unambiguously dismisses the argument that the named person scheme in itself amounts to an unjustifiable interference with family life (although a narrower human rights argument was successful). Secondly, in a point that will be of general interest to public law academics and practitioners, it clarified and develops the court's approach to defining "reserved matters" in the devolution context.
LanguageEnglish
Pages240-247
Number of pages8
JournalEdinburgh Law Review
Volume21
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 May 2017

Fingerprint

Supreme Court
public law
family law
human being
decentralization
interference
human rights
act

Keywords

  • Scottish family law
  • Childrenand Young People (Scotland) Act 2014
  • named person scheme

Cite this

@article{32b12d35f7984c8c8de7fb8ee81bd41e,
title = "Named persons in the supreme court: the Christian Institute and Ors v Lord Advocate",
abstract = "Scottish family law cases seldom find their way to the Supreme Court, but this particular challenge to the competence of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 seemed destined to make it there from its inception. The decision handed down is significant in two respects. First, in a point that may be of greater political than legal interest, it unambiguously dismisses the argument that the named person scheme in itself amounts to an unjustifiable interference with family life (although a narrower human rights argument was successful). Secondly, in a point that will be of general interest to public law academics and practitioners, it clarified and develops the court's approach to defining {"}reserved matters{"} in the devolution context.",
keywords = "Scottish family law, Childrenand Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, named person scheme",
author = "Christopher McCorkindale and Frankie McCarthy",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "31",
doi = "10.3366/elr.2017.0415",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "240--247",
journal = "Edinburgh Law Review",
issn = "1364-9809",
publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",
number = "2",

}

Named persons in the supreme court : the Christian Institute and Ors v Lord Advocate. / McCorkindale, Christopher; McCarthy, Frankie.

In: Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, 31.05.2017, p. 240-247.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Named persons in the supreme court

T2 - Edinburgh Law Review

AU - McCorkindale, Christopher

AU - McCarthy, Frankie

PY - 2017/5/31

Y1 - 2017/5/31

N2 - Scottish family law cases seldom find their way to the Supreme Court, but this particular challenge to the competence of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 seemed destined to make it there from its inception. The decision handed down is significant in two respects. First, in a point that may be of greater political than legal interest, it unambiguously dismisses the argument that the named person scheme in itself amounts to an unjustifiable interference with family life (although a narrower human rights argument was successful). Secondly, in a point that will be of general interest to public law academics and practitioners, it clarified and develops the court's approach to defining "reserved matters" in the devolution context.

AB - Scottish family law cases seldom find their way to the Supreme Court, but this particular challenge to the competence of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 seemed destined to make it there from its inception. The decision handed down is significant in two respects. First, in a point that may be of greater political than legal interest, it unambiguously dismisses the argument that the named person scheme in itself amounts to an unjustifiable interference with family life (although a narrower human rights argument was successful). Secondly, in a point that will be of general interest to public law academics and practitioners, it clarified and develops the court's approach to defining "reserved matters" in the devolution context.

KW - Scottish family law

KW - Childrenand Young People (Scotland) Act 2014

KW - named person scheme

UR - http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2017.0415

UR - http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/140828/

U2 - 10.3366/elr.2017.0415

DO - 10.3366/elr.2017.0415

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 240

EP - 247

JO - Edinburgh Law Review

JF - Edinburgh Law Review

SN - 1364-9809

IS - 2

ER -