THE headline over last week’s big legal development was straightforward: in the Court of Session on Friday, Lady Haldane found in favour of the UK Government, ruling that Alister Jack’s order blocking the Gender Recognition Reform Bill from receiving royal assent was not unlawful, irrational, or imposed in a procedurally unfair way.

So far, so clear. But unpack that headline a little and you immediately run up against a series of legal ideas which demand much more detailed explanation. What is a Section 35 order anyway? When can they be made?

And in the wake of this judgment, are there any limits on when UK ministers can unilaterally veto Holyrood legislation – like this Bill – which falls within the ­Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence?

We know the Scottish Government was seeking judicial review of Jack’s decision to block Holyrood’s gender recognition ­reform. But I don’t think we can take it for granted people really understand the judicial review process – and its limits – either.

Judges decide what to include in their judgments.

But they can’t help how their conclusions are interpreted, and often ­misinterpreted, by the interested and often ­understandably partisan audience doing their best in the expurgated version of the judgment with the help – or sometimes the hindrance – of talking heads and the wider media.

Even the language of the case can be a false friend. If the criticism of illegality, ­irrationality and unfairness sounds strong, you should remember that these are ­technical legal terms.

They’re ­longstanding grounds of judicial review available at ­common law – not calculated insults ­designed to disregard the concerns of those with anxieties about gender recognition ­reform.

Reading all 65 pages of the judgment, by any reckoning this decision represents a significant victory for the UK ­Government, adding another judicial decision to the ­increasingly long and dispiriting list of ­judicial decisions which adopt a narrow interpretation of the devolution ­settlement, minimising Holyrood’s powers and ­maximising the powers of UK ministers to intervene with comparatively little scrutiny if they choose to do so.

Long way off
The days when the Supreme Court held that devolution frameworks should be ­interpreted “generously and........

© Herald Scotland