Singh v France, UN Doc CCPR/C/D/102/18767/2009 (22 July 2011)The UN Human Rights Committee recently decided that a French regulation requiring persons to appear bare headed in identity photographs used for residency permits constitutes an impermissible limitation on the applicant’s freedom of religion in violation of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

P J B v Melbourne Health & Anor (Patrick’s case) [2011] VSC 327 (19 July 2011)In this case, the Supreme Court of Victoria held that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal had both failed to interpret law consistently with human rights and had itself failed to act compatibly with human rights in appointing an administrator to sell the home of a man with disability against his wishes.

LM v Latvia [2011] ECHR (Application No 26000/02, 19 July 2011)In LM v Latvia, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed the importance of ensuring that domestic law provides adequate legal protections to persons with mental illness who are involuntarily detained and treated.The decision is an important guide as to what may constitute “fair and proper procedures” which ultimately safeguard individuals against the arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in psychiatric institutions.

Zhumbaeva v Kyrgyzstan, UN Doc CCPR/C/102/D/1756/2008 (19 July 2011)In this case, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Kyrgyzstan was responsible for injuries to, and the death of, a man held in police custody. The Committee based its decision on the principles that a State assumes responsibility for a person that it takes into custody, and that, where that person's rights are violated, the State must properly investigate and prosecute those responsible to remedy the violation. The Committee's decision is relevant in a Victorian context because deaths in custody have been and remain an important issue in the Australian political landscape.

Home Office v Tariq [2011] UKSC 35 (13 July 2011)In this case, the United Kingdom Supreme Court considered the nature and scope of the right to a fair hearing and, in particular, the circumstances in which the nature of allegations against a person can be withheld from them in the interests of national security.

Al-Jedda v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1092 (7 July 2011) Al-Skeini & Ors v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1093 (7 July 2011)The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) recently decided two applications brought against the United Kingdom under Article 34 the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).

R (on the application of McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33 (6 July 2011) The UK Supreme Court has held that the failure to provide an elderly woman with night-time care assistance to help her use the toilet, and instead requiring she use incontinence pads and special sheets (even though she is not incontinent), does not breach the right to privacy in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

R v Kara Lesley Mills [2011] ACTSC 109 (1 July 2011)In R v Kara Lesley Mills [2011] ACTSC 109 (R v Mills), the ACT Supreme Court delivered an important judgment concerning the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings with a particular focus on circumstances that may constitute 'unreasonable delay'. While the decision largely turned on the facts of the case, it serves as an important guide to what may amount to 'unreasonable delay' and the options available to the Court to provide a suitable remedy.

R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30 (29 June 2011)The UK Supreme Court has held that where one set of proceedings determines an individual’s civil rights or obligations, they may have procedural rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) both in those proceedings and in earlier proceedings that have a “substantial influence or effect” on those proceedings.

Sufi and Elmi v The United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1045 (28 June 2011)The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has found that the return of two Somali nationals to Mogadishu, Somalia would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) because of the situation of general violence there.

Gubacsi v Hungary [2011] ECHR 1044 (28 June 2011)In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) confirmed that ill-treatment of persons in custody by police, if sufficiently serious, may amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). In circumstances where a person enters police custody in good health, and is injured when released, the State bears the onus to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused.

R (on the application of) v The Office of Communications [2011] EWCA Civ 692 (17 June 2011)This case concerns an appeal against the Divisional Court’s finding that a radio presenter’s right to freedom of expression was not infringed by an adverse ruling of the Broadcasting Code’s statutory regulator (Ofcom). The appellant challenged Ofcom’s finding on the ground that it fell foul of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 encompasses the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference, subject to restrictions as prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others. The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (EWCA) unanimously dismissed the appeal.