,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Tend to agree with this. It is worth remembering what precisely the UK Supreme Court - as opposed to the partisan spin - decided was wrong with the original scheme, when it was challenged by the Christian Institute.
The legal challenge was mounted under Article 8 of the ECHR - the right to privacy and a family life. This is a cruicial right, but it is not an unlimited one under the Convention, for obvious reasons.
If states wish to interfere with ECHR rights of this kind, they must demonstrate 3 things. One: a legitimate aim. Two: the interference is "according to law" - has an adequate legal basis. And three: that it is "necessary in a democratic society". Which is to say: proportionate.
The UK Supreme Court accepted (a) the Named Person scheme had a legitimate aim. Held that (b) depending on the circumstances, was capable of being proportionate, but (c) that it fell down on the "according to law" criterion. The safeguards were not made adequately clear, in law.
You can read Lord Hodge's full reasoning here, on the off chance you aren't all UK Supreme Court-ed out, this week. (Yes, he was also on the prorogation case. He was the Scottish judge Aidan O'Neill *didn't* suggest should buck up.) bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/…
The past months and years have been consumed by the attempt to draft such statutory guidelines of sufficient clarity to survive renewed judicial scrutiny under Article 8. The Scottish government now seem to have concluded they cannot do so.
