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 case in question is that of HMA v. Daniel Cieslak where the High Court judge published a detailed statement setting out why she considered an absolute discharge was appropriate in this particular case.
RDean of Faculty d FACULTY DEAN OF Telephone +44 (0)131 260 5622 Facsimile +44 (0)131 225 5341 ADVOCATES LIBRARY PARLIAMENT HOUSE EDINBURGH EH1 1RF www.advocates.org.uk
pdf.
application/pdf.
297192.
For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers from Faculty of Advocates 22 April 2025.
So clearly Equality Act ‘sex’ is ‘legal’ not biological. 24. And when cases like A v Chief Constable and MB v Sec of State (benefits case) taken into account, GRA not only route to being treated in one’s affirmed sex.
Anticipated Topics ✓ Access to Bedrolite, other cannabis-based drugs, high costs ✓ Red Card (Colorado), MedCan Card for Medical Cannabis ✓ Patient Rights (human rights) v Public Health ✓ NHS v Private Treatments ✓ Medical Benefits – risks, side effects ✓ Reducing Stigma – evidence based to unlock institutional (e.g.
It is only if, after this balancing exercise, there is an economic imbalance in favour of the applicant, that a section 28(2)(a) order can be made.
Gow v Grant (2012)1Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29; 2013 SC (UKSC) 1; 2012 SLT 829. (2012).
(para 170)
Shortly after the AXA case, the Supreme Court again had to consider the Scottish test of standing in Walton v Scottish Ministers (2012),1Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44; [2013] P.T.S.R. 51; 2013 S.C.
Where there is an alleged breach of Convention rights by the Scottish Government, including in relation to subordinate legislation it has made, the case of Somerville v Scottish Ministers (2007) is significant.
The Scottish Government's approach is for a cautious but low risk portfolio—
The Scottish Government now accepts that it is appropriate to move away from the index-linked gilts approach that was taken in Wells v Wells and towards a very cautious but low-risk portfolio.