Filter
keyboard_arrow_upAhead of abortion referendum, Irish Supreme Court finds only right unborn children enjoy is right to life
M v Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IESC 14The Supreme Court of Ireland has held that unborn children have no rights under the Irish Constitution beyond the right to life. The decision is significant in light of the upcoming "abortion referendum" as it confirms that only Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution needs to be changed in order to legalise abortion in Ireland.
Read moreFederal Court orders Australian Government to remove refugee children from Nauru to receive appropriate mental health treatment
FRX17 as litigation representative for FRM17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 63 (9 February 2018)AYX18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 283 (6 March 2018)In two recent interlocutory matters, the Federal Court has ordered the Australian Government to remove refugee children from Nauru to Australia in order to receive appropriate mental health treatment.
Read moreEnglish family wins privacy case against TV channel which broadcast eviction against their wishes
Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcast Limited [2018] EWHC 298 (CH)The English High Court has found an episode of a documentary-reality series broadcast by Channel 5, in which a family was shown being evicted from their home, breached the family’s right to privacy under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This right was held to take precedence over Channel 5’s freedom of expression.
Read moreUnited States Supreme Court finds guilty plea cannot bar constitutional claim
Class v United States, 583 U.S. ___ (2018)The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a guilty plea does not, by itself, bar a criminal defendant from appealing his conviction on the ground that the statute under which he was convicted violated the Constitution.
Read moreUK Supreme Court rules that police violated victims’ rights by failing to properly investigate sexual assaults
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD and Another [2018] UKSC 11 (21 February 2018)The United Kingdom Supreme Court has awarded damages to two victims of crime who brought proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Service for substantial failures to conduct an effective investigation into a number of sexual assaults. The decision aligns with a consistent line of authorities from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the nature and scope of the State's duty under article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
Read moreSupreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory rejects claim for compensation under the Human Rights Act
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory [2018] ACTSC 19 (16 February 2018)The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory held that section 18(7) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) does not create a new right or new remedy for compensation for unlawful arrest or detention. The tort of false imprisonment provides adequate protection for that right.
Read moreProtecting the right of journalists to cover demonstrations: a win for journalistic information gathering in Europe
Butkevich v Russia (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No. 5865/07, 13 February 2018)The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that journalistic newsgathering during a public demonstration is a protected aspect of press freedom under article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Any attempt to remove journalists from a scene of demonstration must thus be subject to “strict scrutiny”.
Read moreNew Zealand High Court finds insulting cartoons did not breach hate speech legislation
Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Limited [2018] NZHC 104The New Zealand High Court held that two cartoons published in New Zealand newspapers featuring negative depictions of Māori and Pasifika did not breach hate speech provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 (NZ). The Court balanced the publisher’s right to freedom of speech under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) against the government’s interest in protecting individuals from harmful speech and discrimination.
Read moreUK Court of Appeal finds metadata retention regime inconsistent with EU law
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson [2018] EWCA Civ 70The United Kingdom Court of Appeal has decided that aspects of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which has now been repealed, were unlawful. The Court found that allowing public bodies access to the phone records and internet activity of individuals in the United Kingdom, in circumstances where there is an absence of suspicion of serious crime and independent sign off allowing access, is illegal.
Read moreEuropean Court of Justice finds asylum seeker may not be subjected to a psychological test to determine sexual orientation
F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Court of Justice of the European Union, C473/16, 28 January 2018)The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that subjecting an asylum seeker to psychological tests, designed to provide an indication of their sexual orientation, breaches their right to respect for private and family life under Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Read moreSouth African High Court finds notice provision inconsistent with freedom of assembly
Mlungwana v The State [2018] ZAWHC 3The High Court of South Africa decided that a statutory provision criminalising the convening of more than 15 people without notice was inconsistent with the constitutional right to freedom of assembly, as the limitation contained within the provision was not reasonable or justifiable in an open and democratic society.
Read moreSwiss NGO sued for labelling politician’s speech “racism” denied freedom of expression, European Court of Human Rights finds
GRA Stiftung gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus v. Switzerland (application no. 18597/13) [2018] ECHRThe European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that the prosecution of a Swiss non-governmental organisation which had labelled a Swiss politician's speech as "verbal racism" breached the organisation's right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Read more