M.S. v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 804 (3 May 2012)The European Court of Human Rights has found that a delay in securing appropriate psychiatric treatment for a man who was detained by police constituted “degrading treatment” in breach of article 3 of the European Convention, notwithstanding that the police officers and medical staff involved did not intend to debase or humiliate the man.

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABCA 130 (30 April 2012)This decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta considered the scope of the right to freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was considered in the context of whether a union had the right to collect and distribute images of people crossing a picket line.This appeal was brought by the Attorney General of Alberta who argued that the union's collection and use of the images constituted a breach of privacy.

De Almeida, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) (27 April 2012) The England and Wales High Court decided that the decision of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to deny a terminally ill Portuguese man care and assistance, and to deport him, was a breach of his right to freedom from ill-treatment and his right to respect for his private life protected by articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Queen (on the application of Medihani) v HM Coroner for Inner South District of Greater London [2012] EWHC 1104 The High Court of England and Wales held that the decision of the District Coroner to close down an inquest into the death of a teenager was unreasonable and unlawful. This error of law resulted from the Coroner’s failure to consider the obligations of the Metropolitan Police under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life.

Cecilia Kell v Canada, UN Doc CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 (26 April 2012) The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Canada violated the rights of an Aboriginal woman by failing to prevent her eviction or dispossession of a house.

Australia is flagrantly violating its international human rights obligations and undermining the rule of law by refusing to abide by a decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee – the world’s highest expert human rights body. In the landmark decision of Nystrom v Australia issued in September 2011, the Committee held that Australia violated the human rights of a permanent resident, Stefan Nystrom, by deporting him to Sweden.

London Christian Radio & Anor, R (on the application of) v Radio Advertising Clearance Centre & Anor [2012] EWHC 1043 (Admin) (20 April 2012)The England and Wales High Court held that a statutory prohibition against political advertising did not infringe the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre acted lawfully in refusing clearance for a proposed radio advertisement that requested information to “inform public debate” and “help make a fairer society” as the advertisement was directed towards a political end and thus in contravention of the statutory prohibition.

HA (Nigeria), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 979 (Admin) (17 April 2012)The High Court of England and Wales considered the detention of a Nigerian asylum seeker who was suffering serious mental health difficulties whilst in detention

RKB v Turkey, UN Doc CEDAW/C/51/D/28/2010 (13 April 2012) The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that the termination of a woman from employment on the basis of her alleged extramarital affair – in circumstances where her male co-worker was not terminated – violated the right to equality and the prohibition against wrongful gender stereotyping.

R v Tse [2012] SCC 16 (13 April 2012)The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed the importance of the right to privacy, ruling unanimously that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code R.S.C 1985, which permits emergency wiretapping without a warrant, is unconstitutional. The court weighed the rights entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against society's interest in preventing serious harm and declared section 184.4 to be constitutionally invalid. The declaration was suspended for a period of 12 months to provide Parliament an opportunity to redraft the provision in a way that strikes an appropriate constitutional balance.

Babar Ahmad & Ors v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 609 (10 April 2012) The European Court of Human Rights was required to consider applications by six men facing extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States on terrorism related charges. The decision of the Court in the case of Babar Ahmad and Others v The United Kingdom indicates the approach the court is taking to the interpretation of article 3 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In this case, the Court confirmed that extradition to the US was not a breach of the suspects’ human rights.

Dawas v Denmark, UN Doc CERD/C/80/D/46/2009 (2 April 2012) The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was asked to consider whether the Applicants’ rights under articles 2 (prevention of racial discrimination) and 6 (effective preventions and remedies) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had been breached by Denmark’s failure to investigate the racist character of an attack on the Applicants and to prosecute the attackers on the basis that their alleged crimes had a racist character. The Committee held that various deficiencies in Denmark’s investigation of the attack and its prosecution of the attackers gave rise to contraventions of articles 2 and 6.