Parks Victoria (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2011] VCAT 2238 (28 November 2011)Cummeragunja Housing & Development Aboriginal Corporation (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2011] VCAT 2237 (28 November 2011) The Ian Potter Museum of Art (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2011] VCAT 2236 (28 November 2011)On 28 November 2011, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal delivered judgments in three matters, each dealing with applications for exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (EOA) to enable the limiting of employment in specified roles to Indigenous persons.

Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada 2011 BCSC 1588 (23 November 2011) This case was referred to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada to determine the constitutionality of section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada (establishing polygamy as a criminal offence), in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Jude v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 55 (23 November 2011)In this case, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that admitting evidence of unsolicited statements made to the police by an accused who had waived his right to access legal advice did not deny him a fair trial contrary to article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

McGowan (Procurator Fiscal, Edinburgh) v B (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 154 (23 November 2011)In this case, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that it is not necessary for an accused in custody to receive advice from a lawyer in order to effectively waive their right of access to a lawyer under article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court did observe, however, that where people are vulnerable or the questioning is long and complex, they may need to be given additional protections to ensure they understand the rights in question.

R, Mousa v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1334 (22 November 2011)The UK Court of Appeal recently considered the investigation obligation under articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of an inquiry established by the UK Government to investigate allegations of mistreatment of Iraqis by British troops. The Court found the inquiry did not possess requisite independence because the investigating body was staffed with members of a branch of the military which had been involved in the detention and internment of suspected persons in Iraq during the period under investigation.

Batty v City of Toronto [2011] ONSC 6862 (21 November 2011)In Batty v City of Toronto, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application challenging the constitutional validity of a Trespass Notice issued to a group of protestors on the basis it violated the protestors’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was ultimately held that the Notice was constitutionally valid under s 1 of the Charter, which provides that the rights and freedoms set out therein are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. The protestors' application was therefore dismissed.

Osman v Minister of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security and Ors eKLR [2011] (16 November 2011)The High Court of Kenya has held that the forced eviction of 1,122 people was a violation of the right to adequate housing enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution and a number of other rights, and made injunctions compelling the government to return the evictees to their land and to reconstruct reasonable housing for the community.

R v Larson, 2011 BCCA 454 (10 November 2011) In this case, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia overturned Mr Larson's conviction for unlawful production of cannabis under s 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19. The decision was based on the finding that the warrantless search of Mr Larson's residence, which uncovered his marijuana growing operation, was unlawful under s 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which confers the right “to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. Evidence obtained in this and subsequent searches was excluded by the court under s 24(2) of the Canadian Charter, which provides for exclusion of evidence obtained in a manner that infringes any Charter rights if admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2011] EWHC 1330 (Fam) (9 November 2011)The Court of Appeal has found that the care plan of a man lacking capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK) did not involve a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the ECHR. In so doing, it has usefully clarified the principles which should be taken into account when considering whether a person has been deprived of his or her liberty within the meaning of article 5.

V.C. v Slovakia [2011] ECHR 1888 (8 November 2011) In this case, the European Court of Human Rights held that the sterilisation of a woman, in circumstances where “consent” to the procedure was obtained during the late stages of her labour, violated her right to private life and the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment.

L.C. v. Peru, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 (4 November 2011)The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Peru, by denying a minor who had been sexually abused access to therapeutic abortion and delaying necessary spinal surgery that contributed to her paralysis, violated articles 2(c), 2(f), 3, 5 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in conjunction with article 1.

S.H. & Others v Austria [2011] ECHR 1879 (3 November 2011)The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has found that Austrian legislation which prevents couples from conceiving a child with in vitro fertilization using donated ova or sperm does not breach the European Convention on Human Rights.This decision reverses an earlier finding that Austria’s Artificial Procreation Act breached the applicants’ rights to private and family life (article 8) and non- discrimination (article 14) under the Convention.