Owen-D'Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273Mr Michael Owen-D’Arcy, a person in prison confined to a maximum security unit, successfully applied for judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in respect of two related decisions that sought to continue the solitary confinement that had been imposed on him since 2013.

R v Zerafa [2021] NSWDC 547During a sentencing hearing, the New South Wales District Court considered the “extremely concerning” conditions in which Mr Storm Leigh Zerafa was detained while on remand at the Parklea Correctional Centre when determining his head sentence (the maximum sentence for Mr Zerafa to serve).

COR 2017/3012, Findings, Coroner Olle, 20 September 2021Raymond Noel, a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Wiradjuri man, died in a car accident following a police pursuit on 25 June 2017.

Akers v Victoria Police (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 1060A recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirms that there is no blanket exemption for surveillance documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic).

Millard v Collins [2021] ACTSC 216On 13 May 2021, the plaintiff commenced proceedings under the Human Rights Act 2004 (the 'HRA') by originating application. This decision concerned an application by the defendants seeking an order that proceedings continue as if they had been commenced by an originating claim, rather than an originating application.

Cotterill v Romanes [2021] VSC 498On 17 August 2021, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed a challenge to the validity of the Victorian Government’s lockdown laws. Specifically, Niall JA held that measures to restrict movement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) and associated directions did not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication.

Tkhelidze v Georgia (Application no. 33056/17)The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) unanimously held that the Government of the country of Georgia (the Respondent) violated Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The Applicant, a resident of Georgia, complained under Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention that the Georgian authorities’ failed to protect her daughter from domestic violence and to conduct an effective criminal investigation.

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe et al., No. 19-416, 593 U.S. _(2021) (Nestle)On 17 June 2021, the United States Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision which held Nestlé liable for aiding and abetting child slavery under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The alleged forced labour in Ivory Coast could not be sufficiently linked to Nestlé's conduct in the United States, a nexus required to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts under the ATS.

LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] HCA 18The High Court of Australia, by majority of 5-2, has held that the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (Cth) (FITS Act) does not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication by imposing registration obligations with respect to communications activities.

Katherine Prygodicz & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634 (11 June 2021)On 11 June 2021, the Federal Court of Australia approved the proposed settlement for a class action brought against the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth) for its use of an automated debt-collection system, which was intended to recover overpaid social security payments. The proposed settlement requires the Commonwealth to pay $112 million (inclusive of legal costs) in interest to certain group members, to not raise, demand or recover from certain group members any invalid debts, and to consent to court declarations that some of its administrative decisions were not validly made

LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCAFC 90The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) dismissed an application by LibertyWorks Inc which challenged the validity the Health Minister's power to prevent Australians from leaving the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing heavily on the context and purpose of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth), the Court held that while it may be accepted that the travel restrictions were "harsh" and intruded on individual rights, they were nevertheless authorised by the legislation.

Big Brother Watch and others v the United Kingdom (Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15)On 25 May 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) ruled that the United Kingdom's bulk surveillance regime was incompatible with Article 8 (which provides protections for the right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (which provides for the protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).