Broom v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 2695 (Admin) (03 September 2010)The England and Wales High Court has held that the decision of a prison authority to deny a prisoner access to photographs of his children did not engage that prisoner’s right to privacy.

McAdam v Victoria University & Ors (Anti-Discrimination) [2010] VCAT 1429 (3 September 2010)This decision illustrates how Charter arguments may complement complaints under the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic).  It considers an application by Victoria University to strike out or dismiss a number of claims made by Ms McAdams under the EO Act and the Charter.

Vertido v The Philippines, UN Doc CEDAW/C/46/D/18/2008 (1 September 2010) The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has held the Philippines in violation of its obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to protect against gender-based stereotypes after a judgment issued in a rape case.  The Committee found the State party did not uphold its obligation to ensure an expeditious remedy or to prevent unfair gender-based stereotypes in violation of arts 2 (c), (f) and 5 (a) of the Convention.

Antunovic v Dawson & Anor [2010] VSC 377 (25 August 2010)On an application for a writ of habeas corpus, Bell J of the Supreme Court of Victoria held that the provision in the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) for the imposition of a residence condition in a community treatment order (‘CTO’) is the only lawful means of controlling the residence of a person subject to a CTO.  If this power is not exercised, there is no lawful basis for restraining the person's liberty, which includes freedom of movement.  As the applicant's place of residence was being controlled without the existence of a residence condition in her CTO, Bell J ordered her immediate release.

Adrakhim Usaev v Russian Federation, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1577/2007 (20 August 2010) The Human Rights Committee, in consideration of a communication submitted under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ruled that a man currently imprisoned in Russia had been subjected by the law enforcement authorities to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment during interrogations and while in detention.

Olimzhin Eshonov v Uzbekistan, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1225/2003A father of a man who died in custody submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Committee (Committee), alleging violations of his son’s rights and his own rights under arts 2, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Uzbekistan.  The Committee found that Uzbekistan had breached the ICCPR, finding the son had been arbitrarily deprived of life, subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and that Uzbekistan had failed to conduct an adequate and impartial investigation of the allegations.

Evangeline Hernandez v The Philippines, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1559/2007 (20 August 2010) The Human Rights Committee has held the Philippines breached its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights following the arbitrary killing of a human rights activist by members of the State’s military.  The Committee found that the State party failed to take effective measures both to protect the right to life and to ensure the complete and expeditious prosecution of those responsible for the killing, in violation of arts 6(1) and 2(3) of the Covenant.

Nikolaus Fürst Blücher von Wahlstatt v Czech Republic, UN Doc CCPR/C/99/D/1491/2006 (19 August 2010)The Human Rights Committee has found that Czech land laws requiring citizenship as a necessary condition for restitution of property previously confiscated by authorities constitutes a violation of the right to equality before the law.

AB and Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission and Department of Human Services and Separate Representative of J [2010] VCC AD-10-003 (6 August 2010)A recent decision of the Victorian County Court has opened the door – albeit only slightly – for gay men and women to adopt children in Victoria.  Although the decision certainly represents a positive development, it is also problematic in a number of important respects – most significantly, in its level of engagement with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Perry v Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 09-2292 VRW (US District Court for the Northern District of California, 4 August 2010)The US District Court has held that a prohibition against same-sex marriage violates the US constitutional requirements of ‘due process’ and equal ‘protection’.

R v Cornell, 2010 SCC 31 (30 July 2010)The Supreme Court of Canada has considered the level of inquiry and analysis required to be conducted by police when determining whether a forced entry into a premise is reasonable, consistent with the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.

Valentine v Emergency Services Superannuation Board [2010] VCAT No G585/2008 (29 July 2010)The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has held that s 32 of the Charter does not apply retrospectively to affect the interpretation of the State Superannuation Act 1988 (Vic) insofar as it governs spousal pension entitlements anytime before 1 January 2008 (when s 32 came into effect).  Nonetheless, VCAT Deputy President Macnamara found that the State Superannuation Board's position did not directly or indirectly discriminate against the applicant on the basis of her marital status, such that s 8 of the Charter, providing for equality before the law, would not have been violated.  However, it was suggested in relation to s 14 of the Charter, which protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, that a legal interpretation which imposed a significant financial penalty on a citizen who adhered to her religious beliefs about marriage could be viewed as limiting the freedom of religion or belief in practice.