(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to share information was outwith the powers of the Parliament. It extended the information to be shared about a child without her consent beyond those maters necessary to protect her vital interests, to where it would benefit her wellbeing.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Scotland Act cannot sensibly be interpreted as meaning that an enactment ‘relates to’ the subject-matter of the DPA, and is therefore outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament, merely because it requires or authorises the disclosure of personal data. On the other hand, an enactment does not have to modify the DPA in order to relate to the subject-matter of that Act. The court was not persuaded that the provisions of Part 4 relate to the subject-matter of the DPA and the Directive. However, the information-sharing provisions of Part 4 of the Act and the RDSG as currently drafted do not meet the article 8 criterion of being ‘in accordance with the law’.
The broad challenge was that the compulsory appointment of a named person to a child involves a breach of the parents’ article 8 rights unless the parents have consented to the appointment or the appointment is necessary to protect the child from significant harm. The narrower challenge focusses on the provisions in sections 26 and 27 for the sharing of information about a child.
‘There are thus very serious difficulties in accessing the relevant legal rules when one has to read together and cross refer between Part 4 of the Act and the DPA and work out the relative priority of their provisions.
Of even greater concern is the lack of safeguards which would enable the proportionality of an interference with article 8 rights to be adequately examined. Section 26(5) requires an information holder, when considering whether information ought to be provided in the exercise of the duties in section 26(1) or (3), ‘so far as reasonably practicable to ascertain and have regard to the views of the child or young person’. But there is no such requirement in relation to a service provider’s discretionary power to share information under section 26(8). There the test is merely that the provision of the information is necessary or expedient for the purposes of the exercise of any of the named person functions. Moreover, there is no statutory requirement, qualified or otherwise, to inform the parents of a child about the sharing of information. The RDSG is only guidance, speaks of ‘routine good practice’, and leaves it to the discretion of the information holder whether to involve the parent or parents. It is thus perfectly possible that information, including confidential information concerning a child or young person’s state of health (for example, as to contraception, pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease), could be disclosed under section 26 to a wide range of public authorities without either the child or young person or her parents being aware of the interference with their article 8 rights, and in circumstances in which there was no objectively compelling reason for the failure to ascertain and have regard to their views.
‘the information-sharing provisions of Part 4 of the Act (a) do not relate to reserved matters, namely the subject matter of the DPA and the Directive, (b) are incompatible with the rights of children, young persons and parents under article 8 of the ECHR because they are not ‘in accordance with the law’ as that article requires, (c) may in practice result in a disproportionate interference with the article 8 rights of many children, young persons and their parents, through the sharing of private information, and (d) are not incompatible with EU law in any way which goes beyond their incompatibility with article 8 of the ECHR. We are satisfied that it is not possible to remedy this defect by reading down the provisions under section 101 of the Scotland Act 1998. Conclusion (b) therefore means that the information-sharing provisions of Part 4 of the Act are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.’
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge
 UKSC 51, 2016 SCLR 448,  ELR 474,  HRLR 19, 2016 GWD 22-401, (2016) 19 CCL Rep 422, 2016 SLT 805, UKSC 2015/0216, 2017 SC (UKSC) 29
Appeal from – The Christian Institute, Family Education Trust and similar, Mcintosh and Thomas v The Scottish Minister SCS 3-Sep-2015
(Second Division, Inner House) The petitioning charities challenged the validity of the 2014 Act saying that it was an unwarranted intrusion on the private lives of families in Scotland. . .
At Outer House – In The Petition of The Christian Institute and Others for Judicial Review of The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 SCS 22-Jan-2015
The claimants challenged the 2014 Act saying that in appointing a nominated professional individual for every child, the human rights of the family had been disproportionately interfered with. . .
Cited – Martin v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 3-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the law extending the power of Sheriffs sitting alone to impose sentences of up to one year.
Held: The defendants’ appeal failed (Lord Rodger and Lord Kerr dissenting). The change was within the power of the Scottish . .
Cited – Imperial Tobacco Ltd v The Lord Advocate SC 12-Dec-2012
The claimant company said that the 2010 Act was outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament insofar as it severely restricted the capacity of those selling cigarettes to display them for sale. They suggested two faults. First, that the subject . .
Cited – Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill (Attorney General for England and Wales, Reference) SC 9-Jul-2014
‘Her Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales has referred to this Court under section 112(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 the question of whether, on the proper construction of section 108 and Schedule 7 to the GWA 2006, the . .
Cited – Criminal proceedings against Lindqvist ECJ 6-Nov-2003
Mrs Lindqvist had set up an internet site for her local parish containing information about some of her colleagues in the parish. She gave names, jobs, hobbies and in one case some of the person’s employment and medical details. The Court decided . .
Cited – South Lanarkshire Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner SC 29-Jul-2013
Commissioner’s Approach not in Breach
In May 2010, a Mr Irvine made requests under the 2002 Act for information from South Lanarkshire Council. He wanted to know how many of their employees in a particular post were placed at 10 particular points on the Council’s pay scales. His . .
Cited – Pierce v Society of Sisters 1925
(Supreme Court) Justice McReynolds said: ‘The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public . .
Cited – Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland ECHR 6-Jul-2010
(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him . .
Cited – Gillan and Quinton v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Jan-2010
The claimants had been stopped by the police using powers in the 2000 Act. They were going to a demonstration outside an arms convention. There was no reason given for any suspicion that the searches were needed.
Held: The powers given to the . .
Cited – Olsson v Sweden (No 1) ECHR 24-Mar-1988
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs . .
Cited – Nielsen v Denmark ECHR 28-Nov-1988
The applicant, a minor, complained about his committal to a child psychiatric ward of a state hospital at his mother’s request. The question was whether this was a deprivation of his liberty in violation of article 5. The applicant said that it was, . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Z v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .
Cited – El-Al Israel Airlines Ltd v Danielowitz, National Labour Court 30-Nov-1994
(Israel) ( Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice) Justice Barak said: ‘The factual premise is that people are different from one another, ‘no person is completely identical to another’ . . Every person is a world in himself. Society is . .
Cited – MS v Sweden ECHR 27-Aug-1997
Hudoc Sweden – communication, without the patient’s consent, of personal and confidential medical data by one public authority to another and lack of possibility for patient, prior to the measure, to challenge it . .
Cited – X v Commission ECJ 5-Oct-1994
(Judgment) 1. The right to respect for private life, which is embodied in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and which derives from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States, is one of the fundamental rights . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
Cited – I v Finland ECHR 17-Jul-2008
The processing of information relating to an individual’s private life comes within the scope of article 8 and that personal information relating to a patient ‘undoubtedly belongs to his or her private life’ . .
Cited – Silver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Cited – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Cited – MM v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Oct-2010
Cited – Ali and Bibi, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Nov-2015
At the claimants alleged that the rules requiring a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country to pass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here were an unjustifiable interference . .
Cited – Volker Und Markus Schecke v Land Hessen (Approximation Of Laws) ECJ 9-Nov-2010
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Publication of information on beneficiaries of agricultural aid – Validity of the provisions of European Union . .
Cited – Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd ECJ 6-Oct-2015
ECJ Grand Chamber – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Personal data – Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of such data – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – . .
Cited – Quila and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 12-Oct-2011
Parties challenged the rule allowing the respondent to deny the right to enter or remain here to non EU citizens marrying a person settled and present here where either party was under the age of 21. The aim of the rule was to deter forced . .
Cited – Salvesen v Riddell and Another; The Lord Advocate intervening (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellant owned farmland tenanted by a limited partnership. One partner gave notice and the remaining partners indicated a claim for a new tenancy. He was prevented from recovering possession by section 72 of the 2003 Act. Though his claim had . .
Cited – Google Spain Sl v Agencia Espanola De Proteccion De Datos (AEPD) Gonzalez ECJ 25-Jun-2013
Right to be forgotten by Search Engine
ECJ Opinion – World Wide Web – Personal data – Internet search engine – Data Protection Directive 95/46 – Interpretation of Articles 2(b) and 2(d), 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c), 12(b) and 14(a) – Territorial scope of . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland : Abortion) SC 7-Jun-2018
The Commission challenged the compatibility of the NI law relating to banning nearly all abortions with Human Rights Law. It now challenged a decision that it did not have standing to bring the case.
Held: (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson . .
Cited – McLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
Cited – Gallagher for Judicial Review (NI) SC 30-Jan-2019
Each appellant complained of the disclosure by the respondent of very old and minor offences to potential employers, destroying prospects of finding work. Two statutory schemes were challenged, raising two separate questions, namely whether any . .
Cited – In re D (A Child) SC 26-Sep-2019
D, a young adult had a mild learning disability and other more serious conditions. He was taken into a hospital providing mental health services. The external door was locked, and a declaration was sought to permit this deprivation of his liberty, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Human Rights, Constitutional, Information, European
Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.567720