R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 23) [2016] NSWSC 282 (18 March 2016)The first three people in New South Wales to stand trial for female genital mutilation (FGM) related offences have been convicted and sentenced. Following a nine week trial, and a series of pre-trial applications dealing with evidentiary and procedural questions including the compellability of the child victims to give evidence for the prosecution against their mother (one of the defendants), the defendants were convicted of offences under section 45 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the Act). Each was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment (with a non-parole period of 11 months) and referred for assessment as to suitability for home detention.

Abbott v Queensland Parole Board [2016] QSC 22 (24 February 2016)The Supreme Court of Queensland has set aside a decision to refuse parole to one of Australia’s most high-profile ‘high security’ prisoners, highlighting that any refusal of parole because of a prisoner’s custodial misconduct must be closely supported by evidence, rather than inferences to that effect. 

R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8; [2016] UKPC 7 (18 February 2016)It is a fundamental principle of criminal law in many jurisdictions that a person who assists or encourages another to commit a crime (an accessory) is guilty of the same offence as the principal offender. The case of Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168 introduced a new principle widening the application of the law of secondary liability whereby if two people set out to commit an offence (crime A), and in the course of that joint enterprise one of them (D1) commits another offence (crime B), the second person (D2) is nevertheless guilty as an accessory to crime B if he had foreseen the possibility that D1 might act as they did. This principle is commonly referred to as ‘parasitic accessory liability’ or ‘joint enterprise liability’.

Plaintiff M68/2015 [2016] HCA 1 (3 February 2016)In a highly anticipated decision the High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to the Federal Government’s regional processing framework. The majority of the Court held that s198AHA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) authorised the Commonwealth Government’s participation in the plaintiff’s detention. This decision was made after retrospective legislation was introduced after the case was filed with retrospective operation.

R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for Education [2016] EWHC 128 (Admin) (29 January 2016)The UK High Court held that the enactment of same-sex marriage legislation in 2013 did not render restrictions on opposite-sex couples entering into civil partnerships incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v Attorney General of Canada [2016] CHRT 2 (26 January 2016)In a significant decision handed down by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it was found that the Canadian Government discriminated against First Nations children and families living on reserve and in the Yukon Territory by failing to provide them with equitable child welfare services.

Opinion No. 54/2015 concerning Julian Assange (Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), distributed 22 January 2016

Re: Carla (Medical Procedure) [2016] FamCA 7The Family Court in Queensland made an order authorising the parents of a five year old girl to consent to her undergoing certain medical procedures, including a gonadectomy, and held that court authorisation of this medical treatment was unnecessary. This case raises serious human rights implications about oversight of medical treatment on intersex children in Australia.

Regina (David Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 6The UK Court of Appeal has upheld the exercise of a police power under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (UK) (the Act) to stop and question a person to determine whether they are or have been 'concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism'. Importantly, the Court has also declared that Schedule 7 is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention), insofar as it applies to journalistic material.

Case of Bărbulescu v Romania (Application no. 61496/08) (12 January 2016)Bǎrbulescu v Romania concerns an employee challenging his termination based on his use of his work computer for personal communication. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held by 6 votes to 1 that although Mr Bǎrbulescu’s employer reading his personal Yahoo Messenger messages was an interference with his right to respect for private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right was not violated as the interference was limited in scope and proportionate.

Re: Martin [2015] FamCA 1189 (23 December 2015) The parents of a 16 year old child (identifying as male) sought a declaration that their son was competent to consent to stage two cross-sex hormone treatment for gender dysphoria. Justice Bennett of the Family Court of Australia followed the approach set out by the Full Court of the Family Court in Re: Jamie [2013] FamCAFC 110 (Re Jamie) of considering whether the child was competent to consent to the treatment according to the test in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112. While considering herself bound by Re Jamie, her Honour expressed strong criticism of the Full Court’s decision and of the current position under Australian law which requires a court authorisation before stage two treatment for gender dysphoria can be undertaken.