Members of Owners Corporation on Plan of Subdivision No 441923W (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2010] VCAT 1111 (28 June 2010)In this decision, McKenzie DP refused to grant a proposed exemption because it was not the least restrictive means of achieving the desired outcome, contrary to s 7(2)(e) of the Charter.

Evans, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 1445 (Admin) (25 June 2010)Ms Evans, a peace activist, sought to stop the practice of British personnel transferring detainees to the Afghan authorities by arguing the practice exposed such transferees to a real risk of torture or serious misconduct.

Coronial Investigation of 29 Level Crossing Deaths – Ruling on the Interpretation of Clause 7(1) of Schedule 1 of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) (25 June 2010) The Coroners Court has held that right to life under s 9 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act requires that questions as to jurisdiction and interpretation in the Coroners Court be resolved to enable inquiries to ‘address systemic and prevention issues’.

Schalk and Kopf v Austria [2010] 30141/04 (24 June 2010)Does the right to marry, and the ‘family unit’, extend to same-sex couples?  The European Court of Human Rights recent decision in Schalk and Kopf v Austria considers these issues.

Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v Criminal Lawyers' Association, 2010 SCC 23 (17 June 2010)The Supreme Court of Canada held that the right to freedom of expression in s 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee access to all documents held in government hands.  Access to documents is a derivative right of the freedom, where the denial of that access would preclude meaningful public discussion on matters of public interest.  Access may validly be denied on the basis of countervailing considerations.  In this case, those considerations were client-solicitor and law enforcement privilege.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP [2010] UKSC 24 (16 June 2010)A recent decision of the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that certain control order restrictions may constitute a deprivation of liberty sufficient to engage the operation of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (11 June 2010)The Supreme Court of Canada has held that administrative tribunals with the authority to apply the law, have the jurisdiction to apply the Charter to the issues that arise in the proper exercise of their statutory functions.  It has further confirmed that tribunals should play a primary role in determining Charter issues that fall within their specialized jurisdiction and that, in exercising their statutory functions, administrative tribunals must act consistently with the Charter and its values.

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Canada, 2010 SCC 21 (10 June 2010)Legislation providing for mandatory publication bans on bail application hearings was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as a reasonable compromise between protecting the accused person’s right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of expression.

R v National Post, 2010 SCC 16 (7 May 2010)In this case, the Canadian Supreme Court found that the guarantee of freedom of expression in s 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter) does not create a constitutionally entrenched immunity to protect journalists against the compelled disclosure of secret sources.  The Court examined if there was nevertheless a common law privilege ‘to be applied in light of the important public interest in freedom of expression’ and found that this must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  In this case, the Court considered that the public interest in protection of the secret source did not outweigh the public interest in the production of physical evidence of the alleged crimes.

Laxmi Mandal v Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital & Ors [2010] 8853/2008 and Jaitun v Janpura Maternity Home & Ors [2010] 10700/2009 (High Court of Delhi, 4 June 2010)The High Court of Delhi has issued directions in response to the systemic failures resulting in the denial of benefits to two mothers below the poverty line (BPL) during their pregnancy and immediately after, in violation of the right to life contained in art 21 of the Constitution of India and international human rights obligations incorporated by the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993.

Gafgen v Germany [2010] ECHR 759 (1 June 2010)The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has found, by majority, that a threat of torture amounted to inhuman treatment, but was not sufficiently cruel to amount to torture within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The Court also considered that the applicant remained a victim of the violation, despite limited remedial actions taken by the State party.  Further, it held that the applicant had been afforded a fair trial, because his confessions obtained by way of the breach had been excluded from evidence, even though real evidence obtained as a result of the confession evidence was not excluded.

WBM v Chief Commissioner of Police [2010] VSC 219 (28 May 2010)This case raises the rights to privacy (s 13) and freedom from retrospective punishment (s 27), interpretation of legislation (s 32) and declarations of inconsistency (s 36) under the Charter.