Austin & Ors v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 459 (15 March 2012) In 2001, in the context of a demonstration in central London, up to 2000 people were contained within a police cordon (a measure known as "kettling") at Oxford Circus in London without access to food, water or toilets.The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that this did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

ZH v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 604 (QB) (14 March 2012)The England and Wales High Court has held that police who applied excessive force to a 16 year old autistic boy infringed several laws, including the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the treatment of the boy by the police amounted to assault and battery, false imprisonment, unlawful disability discrimination, inhuman or degrading treatment, deprivation of liberty, and interference with private life.

Reynolds v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 437 (13 March 2012)This decision of the European Court of Human Rights considered the availability of compensation for loss of life. The application was brought under Article 34 of the European Convention of Human Rights by the mother of a person who died while at a mental health facility. The Applicant applied for damages in relation to the death of her son and argued that she did not have any civil proceedings available to her under domestic law for this action.

Slaveski v Smith & Anor [2012] VSCA 25 (29 February 2012)This decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal clarifies the content of aspects of the right to a fair hearing (section 24) and rights in criminal proceedings (section 25) in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The decision also indicates the approach the Court is taking to the interpretation provision (section 32) after the High Court decision in Momcilovic.

Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy [2012] ECHR Application no. 27765/09 (23 February 2012)In a landmark decision the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that Italy violated the European Convention of Human Rights by forcibly returning a group of asylum seekers by sea to Libya.

R v Fleischman, 2012 ONCJ 120 (24 February 2012) This was a Canadian case in the provincial division of the Ontario court system. The applicant was charged with impaired driving and driving with greater than 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood (“over 80”). He brought an application pursuant to sections 7, 11(d) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the proceedings against him to be conditionally stayed until state-funded counsel was provided for his trial. The judge found that counsel was essential to the applicant’s right to a fair trial and that the applicant was unable to afford to obtain counsel, and on that basis stayed the proceedings until state funding could be provided.

The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul's Churchyard Camp Representative) & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 160 (22 February 2012) In the High Court of England and Wales, Lindblom J made orders in favour of the City of London (the City) against the defendants, part of the Occupy protest movement, for possession ofa highway and other open land in the churchyard of St Paul's Cathedral, London, where the defendants had set up a protest camp.

Sonko v Spain, UN Doc CAT/C/47/D/368/2008 (20 February 2012)SummaryThe UN Committee against Torture has found that Spain violated its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in its treatment of Senegalese asylum seeker Mr Sonko, who drowned after being forced out of a Spanish Civil Guard vessel.  This decision exemplifies that placing a person in a situation that causes his or her death will constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in contravention of article 16 of the Convention.

S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes 2012 SCC 7 (17 February 2012)The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the Quebec Superior Court's decision that a state-organised, multi-faith, ethics and religious class did not infringe the right to freedom of conscience and religion. The Court held that determining whether a person's right to religion was infringed required a subjective understanding of the belief alleged to be infringed and objective determination of whether an infringement occurred.

The Queen on the Application of Hurley and Moore v Secretary of Sate for Business Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (17 February 2012)The England and Wales High Court has ruled that a decision to raise university tuition fees did not breach the right to education under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2 of Protocol 1), even when read in conjunction with the right to non-discrimination (Article 14).

Eremiasova and Pechova v The Czech Republic [2012] ECHR Application No 23944/04 (16 February 2012)In this case the European Court held that the Czech Republic had violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court clarified the positive duty of States to take active measures to protect those in their custody from harm, including self-harm, and reiterated the importance of providing an adequate, impartial and independent investigation into deaths in custody. It also commented upon the admissibility requirement that all domestic remedies be exhausted, noting that applicants will not be required to pursue domestic remedies which can only result in compensation when the efficiency of an investigation into a death possibly caused by the State is brought into question. The Court held that the State should pay compensation to the applicants.

Hardy and Maile v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 261 (14 February 2012)The applicants challenged planning permits granted for the operation of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminals in the UK, alleging that the marine risk of a possible collision in the harbour leading to the escape of LNG had not been properly assessed. The European Court of Human Rights found that there was a “coherent and comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework governing the activities in question” and that “extensive reports and studies” had been carried out in relation to the terminals. This was sufficient to fulfil the UK’s obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and homes under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.