Abstract
The decision of the UK Supreme Court in Christian Institute temporarily undermines the Scottish initiative referred to as the named persons scheme - a programme of information governance that will likely (in time) facilitate the sharing of information (and impliedly sensitive personal data) about vulnerable children in Scotland between different child welfare and public protection agencies. The Scottish government already have a blueprint, however, of the legal shortcomings of the relevant information sharing provisions of Part 4 of the Children and Young Persons 9Scotland) Act 2014, since the judgment of the Supreme Court in Christian Institute is very clear and precise in delineating exactly which information rights are lacking in specificity in the scheme as originally legislated by the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. This case commentary piece seeks to place the decision in Christian Institute in a wider context with regard to the way the courts treat challenges to public protection information sharing on the basis of European data protection law or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Highlights
Introduction and case summaryThe case of Christian Institute v Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51 saw the UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, deem certain information sharing[2] provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 19503
These provisions sought to empower the sharing of information between different child protection agencies and professionals via a 'named person' for every child in Scotland[4]
Not due to come into force until 31st August 2016, some parts of Scotland had already seen the policy rolled out before the setback for the Scottish government in the Supreme Court[7]. In response to this judgment an order halting the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the 2014 Act has been laid before the Scottish Parliament
Summary
The case of Christian Institute v Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51 saw the UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, deem certain information sharing[2] provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights 19503 In essence, these provisions sought to empower the sharing of information between different child protection agencies and professionals via a 'named person' for every child in Scotland[4]. The aim of the information sharing provisions of the CYP(S)A 2014, the Supreme Court held, was to facilitate the child protection and social care aims and objectives of the Act as a whole In this way, the Scottish Parliament had not strayed into legislating on a reserved matter in the form of the adoption and deployment of EU data protection law.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
