Schubart Park Residents’ Association and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another [2012] ZACC 26 (9 October 2012)The protection against arbitrary eviction under section 26(3) of the South African Constitution provides that a person cannot be evicted from their home without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. In a unanimous judgment, the Constitutional Court held that the High Court’s order dismissing an application by residents for immediate re-occupation of their homes after their emergency removal was not a justified order for the purposes of section 26(3). The Constitutional Court set aside the High Court’s orders and ordered that the residents were entitled to occupation of their homes as soon as reasonably possible.

Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director-General of Security & Ors [2012] HCA 46 (5 October 2012)In this case the full bench of the High Court of Australia considered the lawfulness of the indefinite detention of the plaintiff, a refugee who has been held in detention in Australia without a visa for three years. He had been assessed as a refugee but his application for a visa had been denied on the basis of an adverse security assessment conducted by the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation.

Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 113/11) [2012] ZACC 22 (28 September 2012)The South African Constitutional Court has enforced the constitutional right to freedom of expression in the recent decision of Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another. The Court found that recently amended provisions of the Films and Publications Act (No 65 of 1996) infringed the right to freedom of expression found in section 16 of the South African Constitution.

Allatt & ACT Government Health Directorate (Administrative Review) [2012] ACAT 67 (28 September 2012) In this case, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal reviewed decisions made by the ACT Health Directorate refusing applications for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (ACT) and granted the applicant access to the relevant information on the basis that it was not “sensitive information” and not subject to FOI Act exemptions. The Tribunal provided a noteworthy detailed consideration of the methodology of interpretation under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

EH, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) (27 September 2012)The UK High Court has recently considered the lawfulness of the detention of a mentally ill person.

Caripis v Victoria Police (Health and Privacy) [2012] VCAT 1472 (27 September 2012)The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ruled that a protestor’s right to privacy was not violated by the Victoria Police’s retention of photographs and video footage taken during a protest. The Tribunal accepted that the records were still needed by Victoria Police for legitimate purposes including planning and briefing for further protests and therefore their retention did not violate Victorian privacy laws.

Fedorchenko and Lozenko v Ukraine [2012] ECHR 1721 (20 September 2012)In this decision, the European Court of Human Rights considered the procedural obligations of the right to life. It held that States have a duty to conduct an independent and effective investigation into all deaths, and in particular deaths associated with State agents

Buckland v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1710 (18 September 2012)The European Court of Human Rights has held that a UK Court of Appeal decision to uphold a possession order against an applicant constituted an unjustified breach of the applicant’s right to respect for her home in violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which concerns the right to respect for private and family life. The European Court awarded damages and costs to the applicant, ordering the UK Government to reimburse the applicant if a costs order made against her in the UK Court of Appeal is enforced.

James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1706 (18 September 2012)The European Court of Human Rights' decision in James, Wells and Lee v United Kingdom demonstrates the tension between indefinite detention in breach of article 5(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the lawful indeterminate detention of "dangerous prisoners" for public protection. Ultimately, the Court found that, in situations where prisoners serving indefinite sentences have no reasonable access to appropriate rehabilitative courses that would enable them to demonstrate they no longer constitute a danger to the public, their detention is arbitrary and therefore unlawful within the meaning of article 5(1) of the Convention.

Nada v Switzerland [2012] ECHR 1691 (12 September 2012) This is a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights regarding how states should approach divergent international law obligations.

R(NM) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 1182 (12 September 2012) The English Court of Appeal in R(NM) v Secretary of State for Justice has recently ruled that a State prison was not in breach of its investigative obligation under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment) as it conducted an investigation in proportion to the seriousness of an incident.

Magee v Delaney [2012] VSC 407 (11 September 2012)The Supreme Court of Victoria has recently ruled on the scope of the right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). In this case, Justice Kyrou held that the right to freedom of expression under the Charter is not engaged where the expression involves property damage, or threats of property damage.