Lindsay v The Queen [2015] HCA 16A recent decision of the High Court of Australia allows the partial defence of provocation to be left to a jury in circumstances where the accused claims to have been provoked by a non-violent homosexual advance.

Geoffrey Léger v the French Ministry of Health and the French Blood Service (European Court of Justice, C‑528/13, 29 April 2015)French health policy imposes a life-time ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men. Asked to consider the legality of such a ban, the European Court of Justice held that the policy was discriminatory, but may be justifiable on the basis of public health. Whether it is justifiable will depend on the prevalence of HIV in the country and the availability of less onerous means of protecting blood supplies. The Court referred the matter back to the Administrative Tribunal for determination.

Eric Gitari v Non-Governmental Organisations Co-ordination Board & 4 Others [2015] eKLR (24 April 2015)The recent decision of the Kenyan High Court in Eric Gitari v Non-Governmental Organisations Co-ordination Board & 4 Others [2015] eKLR is an important victory for the right to freedom of association, and for gay and lesbian people in Kenya. The decision is part of a broader trend of African-based LGBTIQ groups using the courts to protect human rights. 

R v Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278 (24 April 2015)In R v Nguyen, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that a rule which rendered spouses incompetent to testify against each other ("the spousal incompetency rule"), was discriminatory against unmarried couples (referred to as "common-law spouses" throughout the judgment). However, the Court declined to extend the rule on the basis that it was inconsistent with individual autonomy, dignity and self-worth.

Morice v France, Application no. 29369/10, European Court of Human Rights, 23 April 2015European Court of Human Rights has found that a lawyer convicted for instigating the public defamation of two judges was denied a fair hearing and that his conviction violated his right to freedom of expression. 

JK, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2015] EWHC 990 (Admin) (20 April 2015) The UK High Court of Justice has held that the right to have one's private life respected under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) does not extend to the right of a transgender woman to amend her children’s birth certificates to reflect her transition. 

Figueiras v Toronto (Police Services Board) 2015 ONCA 208 (30 March 2015)The Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada has unanimously held that Toronto Police breached the appellant’s rights to freedom of expression and liberty during the 2010 G20 summit when preventing him from entering a certain part of the city after he did not consent to a search of his belongings. The Court found that such conduct was not authorised as a common law police power.

P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council & Anor [2014] UKSC 19 (19 March 2014)The United Kingdom Supreme Court has provided criteria for judging whether the living arrangements made for a person with a disability amount to a deprivation of liberty. If so, the deprivation must be authorised by a court or by the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS) procedure in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK) (MCA) and subject to regular independent checks. In two cases heard together, the Court held that the appellants had each been deprived of their liberty.

R (on the application of SG and others (previously JS and others)) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 16By a majority of three to two, the UK Supreme Court held that the Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 (UK), which limited the total amount of welfare payments a beneficiary may receive to an amount equal to the average earnings of working households, was valid despite having a discriminatory impact on women (in particular, single mothers). A different majority of three judges held that the cap breached the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), but only two of those judges found that this was relevant to the question of the discrimination against the mothers and meant that the cap was invalid. The decision reveals a significant range of views on the status and interpretation of the UNCRC in the UK.

Islam v Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate [2015] ACTSC 20The ACT Supreme Court has held that the Director-General did not breach the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (CM Act) and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HR Act) for failing to provide a detainee with employment. It is a question of fact and degree in each case whether detainees' human rights require corrections authorities to provide them with employment opportunities.

Plaintiff S297-2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 3 (11 February 2015)The High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Communication No. 39/2012, 57th sess, UN Doc CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 (10-28 February 2014) ('N v the Netherlands')The High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.