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.
The law is very clear from the April Ashley case—the Corbett v Corbett case—in 1970. That involved a famous, high-society transsexual, who had married a man, wanting to have the marriage annulled, because she did not want to get divorced.
I want to ensure that nobody is compelled to speak about a holder of a GRC in a particular way simply because they hold a GRC. The judgment in Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development made clear that protection of a belief means nothing without the ability to express that belief.
The report also proposed putting on a statutory footing the principle that was laid down by the case of Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd that a public authority has no right at common law to bring proceedings for defamation.
As the minister said, the two-part test is well established and has been approved in multiple decisions of the Supreme Court, including in the case that was referred to in the letter from the Faculty of Advocates, that is, R(L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
As members know, the 2014 act was, in the case of the Christian Institute and Others v the Lord Advocate, challenged as being outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence.
The Bill’s enabling provisions on electronic voting will not of themselves have any direct financial consequences. The Bill removes 9 v arious legislative barriers to allowing votes to be cast by electronic means, which may be required depending on the outcome of pilots that include some form of electronic voting or other digital processing to be undertaken...