R v Ahmad, 2011 SCC 6 (10 February 2011)The Supreme Court of Canada has held that a two court scheme regulating the disclosure of information relating to international relations, national defence or national security in criminal proceedings does not violate the right to a fair trial. Properly interpreted, the statutory scheme was sufficiently flexible to preserve the full authority of the judge presiding over the criminal trial to do justice between the parties and preserve the rights of the defendant to a fair trial.

 ZH (Tanzania) FC (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 (1 February 2011) The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has held that the 'best interests of the child' should be the first consideration where children are affected by the decision to remove or deport one or both of their parents. While the best interests of the child can be cumulatively outweighed by other factors in determining proportionality, no consideration is inherently more significant than the best interests of the child.

Canadian Broadcasting Corp v Canada, 2011 SCC 3 (28 January 2011) The Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) held that the broadcasting of a video recording of a pre-trial statement tendered in evidence at trial may be protected by the right to freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), but the protection does not apply in every circumstance. The use of an exhibit tendered in evidence at trial is, subject to any applicable statutory provision, to be determined by the trial judge in accordance with an analysis of the competing factors at stake, including trial fairness and the administration of justice.

Caserta v Director of Public Transport [2011] VCAT 98 (27 January 2011) The applicant sought a review of the decision of the Director of Transport (‘Director’) refusing to grant him an application for driver accreditation for a commercial passenger vehicle. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) affirmed the Director’s decision on the basis it was not satisfied that the applicant had met the application requirements under the relevant Act.

Aydin v Germany [2011] ECHR 141 (27 January 2011) The applicant, a Turkish national, brought a claim in the European Court of Human Rights against the Federal Republic of Germany under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ‘ECHR’). The applicant alleged that her criminal conviction for breaching a ban on the activities of the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (‘PKK’) violated her right to freedom of expression.

Kupczak v Poland [2011] ECHR 127 (25 January 2011)Mr Edward Kupczak (the ‘applicant’) was held in detention in Poland awaiting trial for offences related to organised crime. The Applicant was severely disabled in a car accident six years prior to his detention, and suffered severe pain daily.  He had been living with a morphine pump installed in his body to help manage his pain. His pump failed shortly after he was detained. The Applicant remained in detention despite making appeals for two and a half years. The Applicant was released from pre-trial detention in 2008 and was then able to have the morphine pump replaced.The European Court of Human Rights found that through his detention, his lack of access to appropriate pain relief, and the Polish courts’ failure to acknowledge the break-down of his morphine pump, the Applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ‘ECHR’).

Donaldson v the United Kingdom - 56975/09 [2011] ECHR 210 (25 January 2011)A majority of the European Court of Human Rights declared that an application concerning a ban on all prisoners in Northern Ireland wearing emblems with a political or sectarian connotation outside of their prison cells was inadmissible.

Mvumvu v Minister for Transport [2011] ZACC 1 (17 January 2011)The South African Constitutional Court struck down road accident compensation legislation because it is indirectly discriminatory on the ground of race. However, due to evidence of serious budgetary implications, the Court suspended the order of invalidity for 18 months to enable Parliament to cure the defect.

TTM v London Borough of Hackney & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 4 (14 January 2011)The UK Court of Appeal recently considered the legality of detention of a mental health patient where the patient’s “nearest relative”, his brother, objected to an application for detention and treatment being made under the Mental Health Act 1983 (UK) (‘MHA’).

Morales, R (on the application of) v The Parole Board & Ors [2011] EWHC 28 (Admin) (14 January 2011) In this case the High Court of England and Wales decided that the actions of the Parole Board, and the Secretary of State for Justice (‘Secretary of State’) caused an ‘undue delay’ in allowing Mr Jan Morales to test the legality of his detention before a court. Accordingly, the High Court held that there had been an infringement of Mr Morales’ rights under Article 5 (4) of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’).

Suppiah & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) (11 January 2011)The High Court of England and Wales decided that two families who had sought asylum in the United Kingdom were detained unlawfully by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) because the Defendant failed to have regard to its duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.