This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
Cases of that type need the appropriate expertise and sensitivity to deal with them, and there is evidence to show that specialist courts can deliver that. (col 26)
In response, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice stated that he had concerns about the proposal:
that it might be seen as undermining the role of the Lord President, in being responsible for the m...
Committee reports
Date published:
17 November 2017
JS052017R19
Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
A Justice Committee report to the Parliament on the Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
Introduction
At its meeting on 14 November 2017 the Committee considered the following draft instrument:
Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
The instrument was laid before Parliament on 26...
Committee reports
Date published:
17 November 2017
Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
Introduction
At its meeting on 14 November 2017 the Committee considered the following draft instrument:
Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
The instrument was laid before Parliament on 26 September 2017 and refe...
Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html [accessed 28 July 2017]However, the provisions on sharing information which the court, at paragraph 78, described as “central to the role of named person” were found not to be “in accordance with the law.” These provisions – s.23, 26 and 27 of the 2014 Act therefore needed to change.
The exception to this is cases where the abuse took place before 26 September 1964: as discussed above, in those cases the right of action will have been extinguished by the law of prescription and the Bill does not revive those rights.
Should any unexpected visits arise once the Bill is in force, there is no policy wish to give such circuses a grace period during which they may continue to use their animals.