Victoria Police v Anderson & Ors (2012) Magistrates' Court of Victoria (23 July 2012) In the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, Magistrate Garnett dismissed charges against the 16 accused for the offences of trespass and besetting premises under the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) (the SOA) in relation to a demonstration that occurred at Max Brenner's chocolate bar in Melbourne. Relevantly, in dismissing the charge of trespass, Magistrate Garnett took into account the protection of the rights to freedom of expression and association under sections 15 and 16 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). This case note focuses in particular on the Charter aspects of the decision.

Victoria Police v Anderson & Ors (2012) Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (23 July 2012) In the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Magistrate Garnett dismissed charges against the 16 accused for the offences of trespass and besetting premises under the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic) (the SOA) in relation to a demonstration that occurred at Max Brenner’s chocolate bar in Melbourne. Relevantly, in dismissing the charge of trespass, Magistrate Garnett took into account the protection of the rights to freedom of expression and association under sections 15 and 16 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). This case note focuses in particular on the Charter aspects of the decision.

Ketreb v France [2012] ECHR 1626 (19 July 2012)In this case, Ketreb v France, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and a violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. The case concerned the suicide in prison of a drug addict convicted of armed assault. The Court found that the State had failed in its duty to show particular vigilance to prevent a vulnerable prisoner from committing suicide.

Air Canada Pilots Association v Kelly and Others, 2012 FCA 209 (17 July 2012)A full bench of Canada’s Federal Court has found that mandatory age-based retirement schemes are not unlawful under the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite limiting the right to equality. In reaching this conclusion the Court applied earlier precedent which says that mandatory retirement is a justifiable limit on human rights.

Ali & Anor, R (on the application of) v Minister for the Cabinet Office the Statistics Board [2012] EWHC 1943 (Admin) (13 July 2012)This decision of the English and Wales High Court considered the right to respect for private and family life and the exceptions to this right. In particular, the High Court considered whether the Statistics Board’s ability to disclose personal information provided to it in the census for the purposes of a criminal investigation or proceedings was incompatible with a person’s Convention right to privacy.

Mouvement Raelien Suisse v Switzerland [2012] ECHR 1598 (13 July 2012)This is a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the scope of the right to freedom of expression.It involves an allegation by the Mouvement Raelien Suisse (Association) that the refusal by the Swiss authorities of the request for the Association to publish its posters in the Neuchatel municipality breached its rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, as protected by articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

S & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 1810 (Admin) (3 July 2012)The England and Wales High Court has held that a discretion held by prison governors to levy deductions from a prisoner’s earnings where the prisoner is working for a private employer on a release scheme outside prison is not incompatible with their human rights having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to States.

DS v Aboriginal Housing Victoria (Unreported, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Residential Tenancies List, Member Warren, 3 July 2012) In a recent decision, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered the Charter rights of an applicant for the creation of a tenancy agreement. The Tribunal found that the application engaged the applicant’s right under sections 13 and 17 of the Victorian Charter, and ultimately ordered the respondent landlord (a social housing provider) to enter a tenancy agreement with the applicant.

Sodupe v Spain, UN Doc CAT/C/48/D/453/2011 (28 June 2012) The UN Committee Against Torture has found that Spain had failed to ensure that its courts proceeded to a prompt and impartial investigation, where there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in its jurisdiction, in violation of article 12 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. However, the Committee found no violation of articles 14 and 15 of the Convention.

R (on the Application of RMC and FJ) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EHWC 1681 (22 June 2012) In the recent case of R (on the Application of RMC and FJ) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others (RMC and FJ), the High Court of England and Wales held that the indefinite retention of photographs of persons who are arrested, but not subsequently prosecuted, breaches the right to private life protected in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case applies and extends the earlier European Court of Human Rights decision of S v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50, which concerned the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints.

A & S (Children) v Lancashire County Council [2012] EWHC 1689 (Fam) (21 June 2012)In this case, brothers aged 16 and 14 took action under the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) in relation to their treatment while in the care of the Lancashire County Council. The England and Wales High Court declared that the Council and one of its employees, an Independent Reporting Officer, had acted incompatibly with the boys’ right to respect for private and family life, their right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture.

Sullivan v The Government of the United States of America & Anor [2012] EWHC 1680 (20 June 2012)The appellant appealed to the England and Wales High Court against orders for his extradition to the United States to be prosecuted for sexual offences. Lord Justice Moses held that the extradition would expose the appellant to a real risk of detainment under the Minnesota “civil commitment” program, which would amount to a flagrant denial of his rights under article 5.1 (deprivation of liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights.