Gonzalez v Guyana, UN Doc CCPR/C/98/D/1246/2004 (21 May 2010)The UN Human Rights Committee has held that an undue delay in judicial proceedings to naturalize Mr Gonzalez as a citizen of Guyana constituted unreasonable and arbitrary interference with the right to family in violation of art 17(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The Committee also opined the right to a fair hearing was compromised by procedural delays in violation of art 14(1) of the ICCPR.  The delays were found to adversely affect Mr Gonzalez’s application for citizenship.

R v Ashman [2010] ACTSC 45 (21 May 2010)In this case, the ACT Supreme Court recognised that the right to family and the best interests of children under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) may be relevant to the sentencing of a parent or guardian.

Kennedy v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 682 (18 May 2010)Whilst specific breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights were not ultimately upheld, this case provides insight into the application and scope of the right to privacy enshrined in art 8 of the Convention.  Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights discussed in depth the breadth of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies and the jurisdiction available to courts that deal with legislative compatibility with human rights instruments.

Kononov v Latvia [2010] ECHR 667 (17 May 2010)The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered whether criminal law was retrospectively applied to convict Mr Kononov, in violation of art 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights.The Grand Chamber had to assess whether, at the time of the offence, international law provided a legal basis to convict Mr Kononov for war crimes and, furthermore, whether he could he have foreseen that his actions would make him guilty of those offences.  Unless both tests were satisfied, the conviction would contravene art 7. The Grand Chamber also considered how the extension of statutory limitations should be treated under Article 7.

PJB (Guardianship) [2010] VCAT 643 (17 May 2010)Justice Billings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has held that the appointment of an administrator to the estate of a represented person, PJB, was a justifiable restriction on PJB's right to freedom of movement and right to privacy.

Michelle Dawson v Transport Accident Commission [2010] VCAT 796 (13 May 2010)Ms Dawson was seriously injured in a car accident on 13 October 2005.  As a result of her injuries Ms Dawson received a number of therapies in accordance with her entitlements under s 60 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic), funded by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC).  After having children, Ms Dawson requested that the TAC pay for child care services to enable her to continue rehabilitation.  The TAC denied her request and Ms Dawson filed an application for review with VCAT.

Smith v Hobsons Bay City Council [2010] VCAT 668 (12 May 2010)A recent VCAT decision establishes that a planning scheme provision limiting views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows is not incompatible with the Charter.  VCAT also held that a local council does not act in a way that is incompatible with the Charter when exercising its discretion to maintain, modify or delete a planning permit condition requiring the overlooking of premises to be mitigated.

 Castles v Secretary of the Department of Justice & Ors [2010] VSC 181 (4 May 2010)The Supreme Court of Victoria has rejected an application by a female prisoner for an injunction restraining the Secretary of the Department of Justice from refusing to grant the permits and approvals necessary to access IVF treatment, contrary to the Victorian Charter of Rights.  The Court did, however, order that the matter be expedited and brought on for speedy trial within a month given the urgency of the issues.

Henry v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 BCSC 610 (4 May 2010)This case concerned the constitutional validity of voter identification rules, which require electors to provide proof of their identity and residence in order to vote in Canadian federal elections.  The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the relevant provisions of the Canada Elections Act ('the Act') were inconsistent with the right to vote guaranteed under s 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ('the Canadian Charter').  However, the Court held that the Act constituted a reasonable limitation on this right, prescribed by law and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, pursuant to s 1 of the Canadian Charter.

Director of Housing v Turcan [2010] VCAT Ref No R201011922 (Unpublished, 4 May 2010)The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has considered the meaning of ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unlawful’ in the context of s 13(a) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, as well as the relevance of a public authority’s policy to an assessment of proportionality under s 7(2).  Additionally, the Tribunal has held that in determining an application for possession in its Residential Tenancies List, the decision of Bell J in Director of Housing v Sudi [2010] VCAT 328 should be followed to the extent that it is relevant.

Eu-min Jung & Ors v Republic of Korea, UN Doc CCPR/C/98/D/1593-1603/2007 (30 April 2010)The UN Human Rights Committee has held that the Republic of Korea violated art 18, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in convicting and sentencing to imprisonment, 11 individuals who refused to be drafted for compulsory military service as a direct expression of their religious beliefs.

Birmingham City Council v Clue [2010] EWCA Civ 460 (29 April 2010)In this case, the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that the Birmingham City Council’s refusal to provide financial assistance and accommodation to a family while their immigration application was pending resulted in a breach of the family’s right to respect for family and private life under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.