Psychology Board of Australia v Ildiri (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2011] VCAT 1036 (14 June 2011)The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has held that deregistering a practitioner for unprofessional conduct under the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (Vic) is not punishment and therefore does not infringe the right to freedom from double punishment under s 26 of the Victorian Charter.

London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary & Anor [2011] EWHC 1377 (COP) (09 June 2011)In this case, a 21 year old man with autism and severe learning disabilities who was institutionalised, rather than being permitted to return to his home under the care of his father, has been held to have been deprived of the right to liberty and family life. The England and Wales High Court has ruled that that the public authority who kept the man in a care facility for nearly a year, did so unlawfully.

Abortion Supervisory Committee v Right to Life New Zealand Inc [2011] NZCA 246 (1 June 2011)On 1 June 2011 the New Zealand Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the appeal and cross-appeal from the judgment of Justice Miller in the High Court’s 2008 decision in Right to Life New Zealand Inc v Abortion Supervisory Committee [2008] 2 NZLR 825 on the rights of the unborn child and the powers of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) under the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 (CSA Act). The majority (2:1) upheld Justice Miller’s finding that an unborn child has no express right to life, but held that his view that there was nevertheless “reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions” was inappropriate and had no legal effect. The majority also rejected Justice Miller’s finding that the ASC’s general supervisory role included a statutory obligation to audit the decisions of certifying consultants on the lawfulness of abortions in individual cases.

R.R. v Poland [2011] ECHR 828 (26 May 2011)In this case the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered judgment in favour of an applicant, Ms R.R., who brought a case againstPoland for a violation of arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 3 of the Convention protects the right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 8 of the Convention, inter alia, protects an individual’s right to respect for privacy and family life. This case is a significant step forward in the protection of reproductive rights, with third-party comments submitted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, and the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme, University of Toronto, Canada.

Qhinga and Others v S (CCT 50/10) [2011] ZACC 18 (25 May 2011)The Constitutional Court in South Africa recently considered an application for leave to appeal against a dismissal by the Supreme Court of Appeal of a petition filed by the applicants on the basis that relevant portions of the record of the proceeding in the High Court were not properly considered in the applicants’ petition. It was held that the applicants did not have the benefit of a right of appeal or review by a higher court as envisioned in s 35(3)(o) of the Constitution and thus the order made by the Supreme Court of Appeal was dismissed, the petition was set aside and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court of Appeal for reconsideration.

Brown v Plata, 563 US 2011 (23 May 2011)On 23 May 2011 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a lower court's decision finding that the conditions in California's overcrowded prisons violated prisoners' Eighth Amendment right not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of the overcrowding, adequate medical care could not be provided to prisoners. The Court reaffirmed US authority that denial of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, violates the Eighth Amendment. What is perhaps more notable is the remedy it upheld, a cap on the prison population. The Court could have ordered the State to provide adequate medical care in its prisons, and accepted the State's plans for achieving that result. The Court instead found that only if the prison population decreased would it be possible for adequate medical care to be provided.

GC v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 (18 May 2011)On 18 May 2011 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a judgment which considered whether a provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which provided that DNA samples "may be retained after they have fulfilled the purposes for which they were taken but shall not be used by any person except for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime" could be interpreted compatibly with art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and if not, whether police acts of retaining DNA data permanently, were unlawful.

CTB v News Group Newspapers Limited [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB) (16 May 2011)In this case, Eady J of the England and Wales High Court granted an injunction restraining disclosure of the identity of a footballer who had had an extramarital affair. In doing so, the judge first had to consider two competing rights in the European Convention of Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life (art 8) and the right to freedom of expression (art 10). The judge undertook a balancing exercise to determine the relative importance of the two rights in the circumstances. Given the very personal nature of the information and the lack of any real public interest in disclosure, Eady J held that the right to privacy prevailed.

Mosley v the United Kingdom (48009/08) (10 May 2011)The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against former Formula One boss Max Mosley in the latest round of the well-publicised litigation he initiated in 2008 after the UK newspaper News of the World published an article and photographs alleging he had participated in sexual activities with five prostitutes in a London flat.

TG, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2011] EWCA Civ 526 (6 May 2011) The UK Court of Appeal has considered whether a failure to provide housing and other supports to a vulnerable young person breaches their positive obligation to respect the right to a private life. The Court has signposted that ordinarily only failures that amount to ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ will breach the UK’s positive obligation.

Valerie Morse v The Police [2010] NZSC 45 (6 May 2011)The Supreme Court of New Zealand has found that the right to freedom of expression contained in s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) requires an objective approach to the determination of charges of offensive or disorderly behaviour for the purposes of s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (NZ). The provision is directed at behaviour which, when objectively assessed, disrupts order in, or within view of, a public space. Whether those present are offended as a matter of fact, is only one consideration to be taken into account.

DPP v KW [2011] VCC (2 May 2011)The County Court recently handed down a decision in relation to the use by Victoria Police of ‘pretext conversations’ to gather evidence. The matter involved an application by KW to have evidence of a recording of a phone conversation between himself and the complainant excluded in his trial. This recording had been made at a police station using police equipment, although that equipment was operated by the complainant. No warrant had been obtained for the use of this equipment on the basis of Victoria Police’s view that the ‘participant surveillance’ exemption under the Surveillance Devices Act applied to this method of evidence gathering.