Young & Conway v Chief Executive Officer, Housing [2020] NTSC 59The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) initially examined the cases of Jasmine Cavanagh, Enid Young, Robert Conway and Clayton Smith in Various Applications from Santa Teresa v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2019] NTCAT 7. The case involved Aboriginal residents of the remote community of Ltyentye Apurte (also known as Santa Teresa) challenging the poor housing conditions they were subjected to. A summary of that case is available here.Two of the people involved in that case – Enid Young and Robert Conway (the appellants) – appealed that decision to the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The respondent was the Chief Executive Officer (Housing), a body corporate created under the Housing Act 1982 (NT) for the purpose of entering into public housing tenancy agreements.The Northern Territory Supreme Court ruled in favour of Ms Young and the late Mr Conway on two grounds in their appeal and established a precedent that remote community tenants must be provided with housing that meets contemporary standards of ‘humaneness, suitability and reasonable comfort’.

Unions NSW v New South Wales [2019] HCA 1 (29 January 2019) The High Court of Australia unanimously held that a NSW law that imposed a lower cap on the allowable electoral expenditure for third party campaigners compared with expenditure allowed for political parties and candidates was unconstitutional, as it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication.

Catt v The United Kingdom (Case No. 43514/15), European Court of Human Rights, 24 January 2019 The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held that an "Extremism Database" maintained by UK police violated an activist's right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).

Frank v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1 (11 January 2019)Non-resident Canadian citizens who had been residing outside of Canada for five or more consecutive years (Non-Residents) lost the right to vote in Canadian federal elections under provisions of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c 9 (the Act).  Two Non-Residents Gillian Frank and Jamie Duong (Appellants) challenged this under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) and ultimately succeeded as the infringements on their voting rights were held to be unconstitutional.

The Republic of Nauru v WET040 [2018] HCA 60On 7 November 2018, the High Court of Australia (HCA), comprised of Gageler, Nettle and Edelman JJ, unanimously allowed an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Nauru. 

TTY167 v Republic of NauruThe High Court of Australia has decided that Nauru's Refugee Status Review Tribunal (Tribunal) acted unreasonably in refusing the appellant's protection application after the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal at a scheduled hearing. 

R v Vice Media Canada Inc 2018 SCC 53The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal and upheld an order requiring appellants Vice Media Canada Inc. (Vice) and its journalist Ben Makuch (the appellants) to produce communications with Farah Shirdon, a Canadian man suspected of joining ISIS in Syria. The case questions how to balance the freedom and protection of the press with the state’s criminal investigative responsibilities.

AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym); EF (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 58 The High Court of Australia demonstrated its reluctance to uphold entitlements to confidentiality and privilege where there are egregious breaches of one’s right to a fair trial and legal professional privilege. The main issue before the High Court was between Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who wanted to disclose information discovered by Victoria’s anti-corruption commission, and the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police (Police Commissioner), who opposed disclosure because of security risks to a police informant (EF) who was simultaneously acting as a defence barrister for Tony Mokbel and six of his criminal associates (Mokbel and Associates).The High Court found in favour of disclosure, holding that EF’s actions were “fundamental and appalling breaches of [her] obligations as counsel to her clients and of her duties to the court”. The Court also described the actions of Victoria Police as “reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging her” and “atrocious breaches of the sworn duties imposed on every police officer”.

PBU & NJE v Mental Health Tribunal [2018] VSC 564 (1 November 2018)The Victorian Supreme Court has confirmed that the capacity test under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) (MHA) must be interpreted and applied in a way that is compatible with the human rights of persons receiving compulsory mental health treatment under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter). This decision has significant implications for the human rights of persons with mental illness, and particularly for patients who may be subject to compulsory mental health treatment under the MHA.

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 49In a unanimous decision, the United Kingdom Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal that found a bakery's refusal to supply a cake with the message "support gay marriage" to a gay man amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The United Kingdom Supreme Court found that the bakery's refusal was centred on promoting the message and the bakers would have come to the same decision regardless of who requested it. In the Court's opinion it did not amount to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, or religious beliefs or political opinion.

Cemino v Cannan and Ors [2018] VSC 535The Victorian Supreme Court has confirmed that courts must consider the distinct cultural rights of Aboriginal people under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter) when making decisions in relation to an Aboriginal person’s request to be heard in the Koori Court. This decision has significant implications for Aboriginal people across Victoria and for decisions in the Courts about whether an Aboriginal person has access to the Koori Court.

Big Brother Watch and Others v The United Kingdom (Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15) (13 September 2018)The European Court of Human Rights has found that the UK's bulk interception regime violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect private and family life)because of insufficient safeguards governing the selection of intercepted communications and related communications data. Further, the Courtheld that the regime for obtaining data from communications providers violated Article 8 of the Convention because it was not in accordance with EU law that requires data interference to combat "serious crime" (not just "crime"), and for access to retained data to be subject to prior judicial or administrative review. Finally, the Court found that the bulk interception regime and the regime for obtaining communications data from communications service providers violated Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) because of insufficient safeguards for confidential journalistic material.