Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)The High Court's decision in Momcilovic v The Queen upholds the constitutional validity of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). However, the six separate judgments provide varied guidance as to how the Charter should be applied in practice.

Castle & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 2317 (Admin) (8 September 2011)The High Court of England and Wales has dismissed claims made on behalf of three school children that their containment at last year’s demonstrations in central London was in breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘EHCR’). The High Court held that the police action taken on the day, “having regard to the need to safeguard children and to promote their welfare, was necessary, proportionate and lawful”.

Director of Housing v Sudi [2011] VSCA 266 (6 September 2011)The Victorian Court of Appeal has decided that VCAT, in an application for a possession order under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, did not have power to consider whether, by making the application for the possession order, the Director of Housing had complied with s 38(1) of the Charter. Section 38(1) states it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with, or fail to give proper consideration to, a relevant human right.

Inga Abramova v Belarus, Communication No. 23/2009, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008 (29 August 2011) The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Belarus’ treatment of a woman detained under administrative arrest violated articles 2(a)-2(b), 2(e)-2(f), 3 and 5(a) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), read in conjunction with article 1 and the Committee’s General Recommendation No. 19 on violence against women.

Nystrom v Australia, UN Doc CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007 (18 August 2011) On 18 August 2011 the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee published its View adopted in the Communication (Communication No. 1557/2007) submitted by Stefan Lars Nystrom.In this landmark decision the Committee found that Australia had violated article 12(4) (the right to enter his own country), and articles 17 and 23(1) (protection from arbitrary interference with his family life) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

V.K. v. Bulgaria, UN Doc CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008 (17 August 2011) The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Bulgaria’s failure to protect V.K. effectively against domestic violence amounted to violations of articles 2(c)-2(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, read in conjunction with article 1, and article 5(a), read in conjunction with article 16(1) and General Recommendation No 19 on violence.

L.N.P. v Argentine Republic, Comm. No. 1610/2007, UN Doc. CCPR/C/102/D/1610/2007 (2011)The Human Rights Committee found that Argentina’s treatment of a 15 year-old rape survivor violated articles 2(3), 3, 7, 14(1), 17, 24 and 26 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

R v JWC, 2011 ONCA 550 (10 August 2011)This is an unusual criminal law case in which the only evidence against the defendant, JWC, was a statement he made to police in which he confessed to numerous sexual assaults of a number of patients in his care while working at various group homes for people with disabilities.

Alyne da Silva Pimentel Teixeira (deceased) v Brazil, CEDAW, UN Doc CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008 (2011)The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Brazil’s failure to prevent the avoidable maternal death of Alyne da Silva, a 28-year-old Brazilian woman of African descent, violated articles 2 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in conjunction with article 1. The Committee’s landmark decision is the first maternal mortality case decided by a UN treaty body.

The Queen (on the application of S) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCH 2120 (Admin) (5 August 2011) The Claimant, S, sought judicial review of the decision to detain him pending deportation. Owing to circumstances relating to his mental illness, the High Court of England and Wales held that S's detention amounted to false imprisonment and a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibit inhuman or degrading treatment and protect an individual's right to liberty and security of the person, respectively.

Collier v Austin Health & Ors [2011] VSC 344 (27 July 2011)The Supreme Court of Victoria's recent decision in Collier v Austin Health [2011] VSC 344 confirms that section 32 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) will not operate in cases where the facts and events in issue occurred prior to the Charter's commencement. At the same time, however, the decision provides a useful reminder of the common law requirement that — even in the absence of the Charter's direction to interpret statutory provisions compatibly with human rights — courts and tribunals must interpret the provisions of protective human rights legislation as liberally and beneficially as their language will allow.

Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v Romania [2011] ECHR 1193 (26 July 2011)In an important judgment on the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights held that Romania violated article 8 of the Convention through failing to take sufficient measures to protect the physical and psychological integrity of the applicant, Ms Georgeta Stoicescu. Romania was also found to have breached article 6 of the Convention for denying the applicant an effective right of access to a court.