THE Scottish Government’s legal challenge against the UK Government’s decision to block Holyrood's gender reforms has been locked in for September after both parties told a court they are ready to proceed.
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s (SCTS) planned livestream of the procedural hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday did not go ahead due to technical issues.
The hearing was intended to be live-streamed as part of the SCTS’s “commitment to open justice”.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf: Pro-independence majority is 'strength not a weakness'
However, a statement from the SCTS said: “Due to technical issues we were unable to livestream today’s procedural hearing, which has now concluded.
“It was concluded until September 19 for the substantive hearing. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working to resolve any issues for future hearings.”
The full hearing will be heard by Lady Haldane and will take place at the Court of Session over three days.
The SCTS provided a summary of the hearing, which lasted 20 minutes, due to the technical issues.
"The court allowed adjustments to the Answers for the respondent to be received late," a statement said.
"The adjusted petition and adjusted answers are now to be treated as the final documents setting out the parties respective cases."
Both parties are required to lodge the documents required for the hearing to go ahead by September 11.
READ MORE: Anas Sarwar blasted for falling into line under Keir Starmer
Lawyers representing the Scottish Government, likely to be Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain (below), will be given the opportunity to speak first.
They will be given the whole first day on September 19 to set out their argument, and will be required to finish their submissions by 12.30pm on the second day.
The remainder of the second day and the final third day, will be allocated to UK Government lawyers.
The statement said: "Both parties have confirmed that they are ready to proceed to the substantive hearing on 19 September at 10.00am within Court 1. The hearing will be livestreamed."
In April, First Minister Humza Yousaf confirmed the Scottish Government would mount a legal challenge over the UK Government’s use of Section 35 powers, which prevented the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from gaining royal assent.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack had utilised the never-before-used powers under the Scotland Act to halt the gender laws from becoming law, which aim to make it easier for trans people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).
The reforms would have removed the medical element in the current process, allowing transgender people to self-identify.
The UK Government claim that this interferes with UK-wide equality law, an argument that will be tested in the court case.
Yousaf said the legal challenge was necessary to “defend the Scottish Parliament’s democracy from the Westminster veto”.
READ MORE: Graham Linehan considers legal action over cancelled Edinburgh show
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak previously said the UK Government had taken “very careful and considered advice” on the issue.
He said his ministers had concerns about how the Scottish laws “would interact with reserved powers, about the operation of the Equalities Act”, as well as over the “protection of women elsewhere in the UK”.
We previously told how Scottish Government lawyers had asked for a postponement earlier this month due to an expected ruling in another case.
Advocate Paul Reid told judge Lady Haldane that a postponement was needed due to an appeal brought by For Women Scotland to the Inner House of Session.
Lawyers for the campaign group, who opposed the gender reforms, are set to appeal a decision made by Lady Haldane regarding the definition of a woman in relation to gender representation on public boards legislation.
The judge previously ruled against For Women Scotland, with the appeal set for October.
Lady Haldane ruled that the meaning of "sex" is not limited to biological or birth sex, but can include those in possession of a GRC "obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex."
Essentially, the ruling meant transgender women with GRC's can legally be defined as women when it comes to legislation to ensure gender balance on public boards.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel