Gale & Anor v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49 (26 October 2011) Approximately £2 million worth of property was confiscated from the appellants, on the basis that it was the fruit of drug trafficking, money laundering and tax evasion. Under Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that the appellants’ criminal conduct was to be proved on the balance of probabilities, and not beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the proceedings were civil in nature and did not share a procedural link with previous criminal proceedings brought against one of the appellants in Portugal and Spain.

R v Nakamura, 2011 BCSC 1443 (26 October 2011) This case concerns a voir dire ruling made by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to exclude from the proceedings an incriminating statement made by one of the two accused on the basis that the accused was not advised upon being detained of the right to counsel. Pursuant to s 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone has a guaranteed right upon on arrest or detention ‘to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right’. Section 24(2) of the Charter provides for the exclusion of impugned evidence if admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Mandic and Jovic v Slovenia [2011] ECHR Application Nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10 (20 October 2011) In this case, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that inadequate physical conditions of detention in prison, in particular insufficient personal space for prisoners resulting from systemic overcrowding, can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. If a prison does not meet certain minimum standards, the threshold of severity necessary to amount to a breach of article 3 may be crossed even in the absence of a positive intention to humiliate or debase prisoners.

Sessay, R (on the application of) v South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2011] EWHC 2617 (QB) (13 October 2011) The High Court of England and Wales considered the circumstances in which the compulsory admission to hospital of non-compliant incapacitated patients under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may constitute a deprivation of liberty in contravention of article 5 the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

AB v Western Australia [2011] HCA 42 (6 October 2011) The High Court delivered a unanimous judgment affirming the right of transgender people to have their gender officially recognised after undergoing medical or surgical procedures, even if not all of their reproductive organs have been altered. The Court emphasised the purpose of the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) to alleviate suffering and discrimination transgender people face in society by providing legal recognition of their self-identification and perception of gender.

Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) (3 October 2011) The High Court of England and Wales has partially upheld claims by the Equality & Human Rights Commision and Mr Al Bazzouni (a former detainee) that Government guidance regarding what British intelligence officers should do if they suspect detainees being interviewed overseas are at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is unlawful.

Canada (Attorney-General) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 (30 September 2011)The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the failure of the Minister of Health to grant an exemption to allow a safe injecting facility to operate notwithstanding federal anti-drug laws violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was because the evidence clearly demonstrated that the safe injecting facility was effective in saving lives and reducing drug-related harm.

Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 (28 September 2011) Federal Court judge Bromberg J recently held that Herald Sun opinion columnist Andrew Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times had contravened the racial vilification provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in two articles published in 2009. Bromberg J highlighted that “[a]t the heart of any attempt to secure freedom from racial prejudice and intolerance is the protection of equality and the inherent dignity of all human beings.”

Bah v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1448 (27 September 2011) The European Court of Human Rights has held that a person's immigration status is a relevant ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, as a person's immigration status involves an element of choice, the ECHR held that the justification needed for differential treatment on this basis need not be as weighty as where differential treatment is based on an inherent characteristic such as sex or nationality.

Federation of Law Societies of Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 BCSC 1270 (27 September 2011) In the context of international pressure on states to combat anti-money laundering and terrorism financing, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has held that limitations on solicitor-client privilege imposed by anti-money laundering legislation violate principles of fundamental justice in contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision will remove the legal profession from the operation of two pieces of anti-money laundering and terrorist financing legislation in Canada.

Aldridge v R [2011] ACTCA 20 (22 September 2011)The ACT Court of Appeal has held that, by operation of s 11(2) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), the arrangements for care of children is a relevant factor to be taken into account in the grant of bail, sentencing, and the grant of bail pending appeal against sentence.

Palomo Sanchez v Spain [2011] ECHR 1319 (12 September 2011)In this case, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered whether the dismissal of employees for publishing offensive material in a trade union newsletter contravened the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The majority of the Grand Chamber concluded that the dismissals were reasonable and that no contravention of articles 10 and 11 had occurred.