DPP v Alexander (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 161Justice Mossop of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has found that an accused person, Alexander (a pseudonym), was imprisoned in contravention of section 19 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) in circumstances where they were on remand and imprisoned with people who had been convicted. Alexander’s right to be separated from convicted prisoners was not restricted by the operation of section 44 of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (CMA). Accordingly, his Honour found that the requirements for “special or exceptional circumstances” favouring a grant of bail under section 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act) were satisfied. 

Berih v State of Victoria (No 2) [2024] VSC 230The Victorian Supreme Court upheld the defendants' application for summary dismissal but granted leave for the plaintiff to reformulate his claim, in a representative proceeding (class action) challenging the validity of the decision to demolish three public housing towers in Melbourne. Justice Richards held the plaintiff's claim had no real prospect of success because the claim did not identify a decision that the plaintiff had standing to seek judicial review remedies for. The lack of justiciability of the decision was fatal to both the jurisdictional error ground and the Charter grounds in this matter.

BZN v Chief Executive, the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2023] QSC 266On 30 November 2023, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the plaintiff, BZN, had not proven that the final review decision, which affirmed the findings of an investigation into his alleged sexual assault of a child, was: legally invalid; or unlawful under section 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA'). The judgment offers insights into how the HRA applies to public authorities and the standards they must meet in making decisions that adequately consider human rights.

Athwal v State of Queensland [2023] QCA 156 Kamaljit Kaur Athwal successfully brought an action against the State of Queensland seeking a declaration that the restriction on possessing a knife for religious reasons inside a school was inconsistent with the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’).

eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499The high-profile dispute between the Office of the eSafety (‘eSafety’) Commissioner and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) has tested key powers of Australia’s Online Safety Act and stimulated spirited debate on the interplay between online safety laws and rights to freedom of expression. eSafety sought enforcement of a removal notice pertaining to a bundle of content showing the high-profile stabbing in Sydney of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. The Federal Court refused to extend an ex parte interim injunction against X Corp, and held that geo-blocking is a reasonable step for removing content pursuant to a removal notice under section 109 of the Online Safety Act. The judgment suggests Parliament should clarify the meaning of ‘all reasonable steps’ in the context of the Online Safety Act.

On 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ('ECHR') handed down rulings in three important matters concerning the human rights impacts of climate change. These rulings highlight the ECHR's stance on the human rights implications of national climate policies.

The Supreme Court of Queensland has found that directions issued by the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service and the Director General of Queensland Health to their employees were unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA') or of no effect. Injunctions were granted to restrain the enforcement of the directions. In a separate proceeding, applicants who challenged the validity of directions issued by the Chief Health Officer were found to not have standing and the application was consequently dismissed.This summary focuses on the aspects of the judgments that relate to the HRA.

McIver v Australian Capital Territory; Williams v Australian Capital Territory [2024] ACTSC 112Curtin AJ of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Supreme Court has refused to grant an extension of time to bring claims for compensation or damages under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) to persons who allege their human rights were infringed by a public authority, being the Australian Capital Territory (Territory), because of the finding that the claims were futile. The case contains helpful discussion of the operation of the HRA.

High Court ruling in ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia [2024] HCA 19 On 10 May 2024, the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of ASF17. The decision followed the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ in November 2023, in which the Court held it was unlawful for the Australian Government to continue detaining a person in immigration detention where there was no real prospect of the person’s removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future. That case was brought by a plaintiff who was both stateless and engaged Australia’s international protection obligations. In ASF17, the Court considered whether the same limitation on detention applied to a person who did not have a formal protection finding, but could not be removed because his country of origin refuses to accept the forced return of its citizens and he had not consented to return. 

National Council for Civil Liberties v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1181In an important decision on protest rights in England, the High Court of Justice has found that amendments made by the Secretary of State to the Public Order Act 1986 (‘POA Act’) were unlawful. The amended regulations had the effect of lowering the threshold of police intervention in protests. In its decision, the Court considered four grounds of challenges and accepted two of them. The decision is useful in understanding what is considered to be unlawful and the limitations in circumventing legislative processes.

Smith v Fonterra [2024] NZSC 5The New Zealand Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision on a case brought by Māori elder, Mike Smith, against seven of New Zealand's largest greenhouse gas emitters.Prior to this decision, the common law had entrenched the prevailing orthodoxy that tort claims could not be used to challenge or address climate change and that the regulation of greenhouse gas emitters was best left to the other branches of government through statutory regulation. This case is significant as it marks one of the first decisions where a court has recognised that tort law can be used to challenge the greenhouse gas emissions of a private entity.

Mr Gutierrez v MUR Shipping Australia Pty Limited [2023] FCA 399 Alex Gutierrez successfully brought proceedings against MUR Shipping (‘MUR’) for breaches of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth). On 4 May 2023, the Australian Federal Court allowed an appeal challenging the damages awarded to Mr Gutierrez by the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Court found in favour of Mr Gutierrez, substantially increasing his general damages and awarding him damages for economic loss.