LM v Childrens Court of The Australian Capital Territory and The Director of Public Prosecutions for the ACT [2014] ACTSC 26 (24 February 2014)The ACT Supreme Court has confirmed that the ACT Children’s Court has the power to stay proceedings in cases where the Public Prosecutor has breached the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). While this case did not merit the grant of a permanent stay of proceedings, such a remedy is available within the existing powers of the Children’s Court in certain circumstances, including where abuse of process is proved.

SG & Ors (Previously JS & Ors), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Work And Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 156 (21 February 2014) The UK Court of Appeal has held that a cap on housing benefits does not breach the rights of the child, the family or the right to freedom from discrimination. The cap was found to have a discriminatory impact upon women, particularly single mothers and mothers escaping domestic violence. The Court of Appeal considered the cap was justified in light of the legitimate aim of ensuring people return to work.

Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2014] EWHC 255 (Admin) (19 February 2014)Police stopped David Miranda at Heathrow airport and confiscated encrypted National Security Agency material that had originally been stolen by Edward Snowden. Mr Miranda was carrying the data to assist a Guardian journalist. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales rejected Mr Miranda’s arguments that the stop and search had interfered with his right to freedom of expression under English common law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that it was a proportionate measure in the circumstances, and was a permissible restriction prescribed by law in the interests of national security and safety.

R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) (EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) (MA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of EM (Eritrea)) (AE) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12 (19 February 2014)The UK Supreme Court has held that returning an asylum seeker to the country whether they first claimed asylum is prohibited, if it can be established that there is a real risk that the person transferred will suffer inhumane or degrading treatment – which is prohibited by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court overturned the UK Court Appeal’s decision that there needs to be systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedures of the receiving state before a transfer of an asylum seeker should be prevented under the Dublin Regulation.

Elisabeth de Blok et al. v. the Netherlands Communication No. 36/2012, UN Doc CEDAW/C/57/D/36/2012 (17 February 2014)The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women found that the Netherlands’ temporary failure to provide an adequate maternity leave scheme between 2004 and 2008 involved a breach of its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The case raises interesting questions about the minimum standard of maternity leave required at international law; the ability of a state to meet its human rights obligations through the private sector; and the relationship between maternity leave and gender discrimination laws.

Tali v Estonia (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 66393/10, 13 February 2014)The European Court of Human Rights has held that the use of restraints and pepper spray on a prisoner in Estonia amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Pepper spray should never be used in confined spaces or against prisoners who have already been brought under control. Restraints can only be justified to avoid self harm or serious danger to other individuals or prison security.

Gramada v Romania (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 1497/09, 11 February 2014)The European Court of Human Rights has found that the failure by Romanian authorities to adequately investigate whether a police officer who shot Mr Gramada in the thigh had used excessive force was violation of the prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (article 3, European Convention on Human Rights).The Romanian authorities and courts had concluded that the police officer was justified in using force in the circumstances, even though his actions were disproportionate to the threat he faced, because he thought he was being threatened by armed men, and was scared and confused. However, the ECtHR noted that this conclusion was based on acceptance of the police officer’s testimony despite its inconsistency with other evidence, and highlighted serious flaws in the investigation, including the failure to obtain a ballistics report, and the failure to reconstruct the events on-site, which was normally standard procedure in these kind of cases. In these circumstances, the criminal investigation that had been conducted did not provide sufficient redress for the violation of Mr Gramada’s rights under article 3. 

Lemire v Canada (Human Rights Commission) 2014 FCA 18 (31 January 2014)The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal has held that the hate speech prohibitions and penalties contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act are constitutionally valid and do not violate the right to freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shahid v The Scottish Ministers [2014] ScotCS CSIH 18A (31 January 2014)The Scottish Court of Sessions recently confirmed a decision of the Lord Ordinary, and held the use of segregation did not breach a prisoner’s rights, despite a lack of strict compliance with the rules governing segregation.

O'Keeffe v Ireland (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 35810/09, 28 January 2014) The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the State of Ireland failed in its obligation to protect the applicant from sexual abuse she suffered as a child in an Irish National School and therefore violated her rights under article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). This case is not concerned with the responsibility of the perpetrator, but rather with the responsibility of the State, and whether the State ought to have been aware of the risk of sexual abuse of minors in Irish National Schools at the relevant time and whether adequate legislative protection was in place.

Woods v DPP [2014] VSC 1 (17 January 2014)The Supreme Court of Victoria has made its first decision on the 2013 amendments to the Bail Act 1977 (Vic) regarding conditions of bail. The Court held that it is necessary to pay careful attention to proposed bail conditions when determining whether bail should be granted and that conditions must be formulated to meet the individual circumstances of the case taking into account the applicant’s human rights.

Vidal-Hall & Ors v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)The High Court of Justice has allowed a group of claimants to issue legal proceedings in the UK against US-based Google Inc in regards to the tracking and collation of information about their internet usage. Justice Tugendhat held that the UK courts had jurisdiction to hear the claims and that there is a tort of “misuse of private information”.