R v NS, 2010 ONCA 670 (13 October 2010)The Ontario Court of Appeal recently handed down a significant decision regarding the conflict between the constitutional rights of a witness in a criminal proceeding and the constitutional rights of the accused in that same proceeding.  The witness, an alleged victim of sexual assault, sought to uphold her right to religious freedom by wearing her veil, or niqab, while appearing as a witness.  The accused contended that his right to a fair trial required that he, his counsel and the trier of fact be able to see his accuser's face when she appeared as a witness.  The judgment discussed these competing rights and how courts should go about reconciling them.

Cobaw Community Health Services Limited v Christian Youth Camps Limited & Anor [2010] VCAT 1613 (8 October 2010)VCAT has recently ruled that a Christian adventure resort has discriminated against a gay youth suicide prevention group by denying them access to its camping facilities because of their sexual orientation.

MXL, R (on the application of) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2397 (Admin) (30 September 2010)The England and Wales High Court has held that the immigration detention of a Jamaican woman with dependant children breached arts 5 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights on the basis that her detention affected the welfare of her children.  It was further held that the decision makers’ failure to apply a relevant policy when exercising their discretion to continue the claimant’s detention, also rendered her detention unlawful.

Road Accident Fund and Another v Mdeyide [2010] ZACC 18 (30 September 2010)The Constitutional Court of South Africa has held that an inflexible 3-year time limit for lodging a claim for personal injuries sustained in a transport accident is a justified limitation on the right to access courts, which is protected by s 34 of the South African Bill of Rights.

Bedford v Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 (28 September 2010)In September 2010, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) struck down ss 210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which criminalised certain aspects of sex work, on the basis that they violated the right to security of the person and, in the case of s 213(1)(c), the freedom of expression.  According to the Court, the impugned provisions endangered the lives of sex workers and forced them to choose between their right to liberty and their right to security of the person, in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v State of Manipur & Ors [2010] INSC 782 (27 September 2010)The Indian Supreme Court has consider the right to liberty and safeguards against arbitrary detention, including the need for sufficient justification for any deprivation of liberty and the availability of expeditious, substantive review of the lawfulness of any such detention.

Kay & Ors v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 1322 (21 September 2010)This decision concerned the right to respect for home under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights decided that the decision of the UK County Court to strike out the applicants’ art 8 defences meant that ‘procedural safeguards’ for the assessment of proportionality of the interference with the right were not observed.  Accordingly, it was held that there had been a violation of art 8 of the Convention.

Adan v Denmark, UN Doc CERD/C/77/D/43/2008 (21 September 2010)The Petitioner, Saada Adan, filed a complaint against Denmark with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) alleging violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in relation to comments made in political discussion on a radio programme by a politician, Søren Espersen.CERD considered Denmark in breach of its obligations under the ICERD, specifically arts 2(1)(d), 4 and 6, on thebasis of failure to effectively prohibit acts of discrimination and dissemination of discriminatory ideas and a failure to provide effective protections and remedies to those aggrieved.

Sanoma Uitgevers BV v The Netherlands [2010] ECHR 1284 (14 September 2010)Journalistic material was seized by public authorities in the course of a criminal investigation despite a confidentiality agreement between the journalists and their sources.Article 10(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights requires that any interference with the right to freedom of expression (art 10(1)) must be ‘prescribed by law’.  The European Court of Human Rights held that this requires not only that intrusions on the right to free expression be explicitly authorized by law, but that procedural safeguards – including an assessment by an impartial and independent body – also must exist.  Furthermore, this assessment must take place prior to the exploitation of the material by the authorities.  The Court held that the quality of the Netherlands law was deficient as no statutory provision existed for judicial review before the police or the prosecution were allowed to seize journalistic materials.  The Court unanimously held that this deficiency amounted to a breach of the right to freedom of expression.

McFarlane v Ireland [2010] ECHR 1272 (10 September 2010)In a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Ireland was held by twelve votes to five to be in breach of the right to have a hearing within a reasonable time under art 6 § 1 and the right to an effective remedy under art 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights.  The Grand Chamber awarded the applicant €5,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €10,000 in costs and expenses.

De Simone v Bevnol Constructions and Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] VSCA 231 (10 September 2010)The Victorian Court of Appeal has declined to answer a question of law referred to it by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under s 33(1) of the Charter on the basis that VCAT had not determined the merits of the application before it, and accordingly, the question was purely hypothetical.

Ayangma v French School Board, 2010 PECA 16 (9 September 2010)The decision reviews the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence in regards to the violation of the human right to equality under s 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in an employment context. The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal considers whether the trial judge below erred in finding that the hiring of school teachers and principals by a school board was not in violation of the appellant’s right to equality.