‘Two years ago the “Turing law” was passed to right a historic injustice by pardoning gay men convicted in the past because of their sexuality. But fewer than 200 living people have had their convictions wiped out so far. What’s going wrong?’
BBC News, 30th September 2019
‘Does a law prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the right to manifest one’s religion or belief? This novel argument will soon be tested in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), where the Government of Bermuda will be appealing against successive decisions by the island’s first instance and appellate courts to strike down legislation which prohibited same-sex marriage.’
Law & Religion UK, 30th July 2019
‘This summary does not cover every eventuality but intends to outline some of the possible criminal offences that may be committed. It should not be treated as legal advice and is not meant to be an exhaustive account of this area of law.
The police are responsible for investigating an allegation that a crime has been committed. Following investigation, the decision whether to charge a person with a criminal offence lies either with the police or the CPS.
Where a series of existing offences – including harassment and public order offences – are committed, and such an offence was motivated by hostility to race or religion, or was accompanied by hostility to race or religion proximate to the commission of the offence, a separate racially or religious aggravated offence is committed attracting a greater penalty. For further details, see the CPS-published guidance on this website. For those offences not covered but where hostility or hostile motivation towards race or religion is present, or hostility or hostile motivation towards disability, sexual orientation or transgender is present, this must be treated as an aggravating factor at sentence and stated as such in open court.’
Crown Prosecution Service, 11th January 2018
‘The Supreme Court unanimously and comprehensively reversed the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s decision in the “gay cake” case. The Supreme Court, in a decision of considerable significance for the United Kingdom as a whole, and beyond, held that the bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If and to the extent that there was an arguable case of discrimination on grounds of political opinion, no justification has been shown for overriding the bakery’s ECHR protections against compelled speech.’
Blackstone Chambers, 10th October 2018
‘On 10 October 2018, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd  UKSC 49, sparking much debate and commentary. The judgment is legally important for how it conceptualises freedom of expression, and for the surprising evidence of judicial overreaching it contains. Given that others have already considered the former issue in some depth (see Chandrachud and Rowbottom on this blog alone), we focus on the latter in this post.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th October 2018
‘In the high-profile decision in Lee v Ashers, the Supreme Court had to consider a customer’s rights against discrimination along with the baker’s right to freedom of expression. In its finding for the baker, the Supreme Court took an important step in developing a domestic doctrine against ‘compelled speech’. While the outcome of the case divides opinion, the reasoning of the Court requires further consideration of when a person has a right not express a particular view.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 16th October 2018
‘Lee v. Ashers Baking Company Ltd. On Wednesday the Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the ‘gay cake’ case. The Court unanimously held that it was not direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or political opinion for the owners of a Northern Irish bakery to refuse to bake a cake with the message ‘Support Gay Marriage’ on it, when to do so would have been contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th October 2018