AD and OD v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 340 (16 March 2010)The European Court of Human Rights has held that the United Kingdom breached its obligation to respect private and family life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of errors made by a local child protection authority.The errors lead to the removal of a child from his family for a period that was unnecessarily prolonged and in a manner that was overly disruptive way.  The Court also held that there had been a breach of art 13 of the Convention because, at the time of the incident, no domestic redress was available for the child’s mother.

XYZ v Victoria Police [2010] VCAT 255 (16 March 2010)In a significant decision, Bell J has held that the right to freedom of expression under s 15(2) of the Victorian Charter ‘incorporates a positive right to obtain access to government-held documents’.  His Honour found, however, that the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) is substantively compatible with this right and that the Charter does not ‘call for any different manner of applying’ the public interest override where access to documents is refused.

Inquest into the Death of Tyler Cassidy: Ruling on applications to be granted leave to participate as Interested Parties pursuant to s 56 Coroners Act 2008 (4 March 2010)The Coroner's Court of Victoria recently considered applications by three public interest bodies for leave to appear as interested parties in the inquest into the death of Tyler Cassidy.  The applications were made pursuant to s 56 of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic), which states that the coroner may give a person leave to appear as an interested person at an inquest if the coroner is satisfied that the person: (1) has a sufficient interest in the inquest; and (2) it is appropriate for the person to be an interested party. 

Wesley College (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2010] VCAT 247 (3 March 2010)In this case, VCAT considered an exemption application pursuant to s 83 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 by Wesley College. The exemption sought to enable Wesley to advertise for and give preference to prospective female students so as to promote a gender balance among students at the school.

Al-Sadoom and Mufdhi v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 282 (2 March 2010)The European Court of Human Rights has held that the United Kingdom breached a number of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by handing over two suspected insurgents (the applicants) to Iraqi authorities.

Kozak v Poland [2010] ECHR 280 (2 March 2010)The European Court of Human Rights has held that Poland violated arts 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights by denying a man living in a homosexual relationship the right to succeed to a tenancy after the death of his partner.

Whatcott v Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal), 2010 SKCA 26 (25 February 2010)The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan has unanimously held that four flyers, which contained anti-gay sentiments, were not so extreme as to violate that prohibition on hate speech under The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code ('Code').  In arriving at this decision, the court emphasised the importance of protecting the right to freedom of expression, which is protected by the Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights (Charter) and the common law.

Habib v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] FCAFC 12 (25 February 2010)On 25 February 2010, the Full Court of the Federal Court delivered a significant judgment that will allow the Court to consider the Mamdouh Habib’s claims against the Commonwealth for torts of misfeasance in public office and intentional but indirect infliction of harm.

Poverty Alleviation Network & Ors v President of the Republic of South Africa & Ors [2010] ZACC 5 (24 February 2010)In Poverty Alleviation Network (‘Matatiele 3’) the Constitutional Court of South Africa effectively held that constitutional obligations owed by South African legislatures to facilitate public involvement are obligations of process rather than outcome.  Thus, so long as the public has been given a reasonable opportunity to give its views or opinions to the legislature in relation to its legislative or other processes, and the legislature has given them due consideration, there is no requirement that the legislature follows or gives effect to such views in performing its functions.

Norris v Government of United States of America [2010] UKSC 9 (24 February 2010)The UK Supreme Court has held that the extradition of a mentally and physically fragile 66-year-old did not contravene the right to respect for private and family life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

R v Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 (19 February 2010)The Canadian Supreme Court has held that the excessive use of force by police officers in conducting an arrest was a breach of the accused’s right to security of the person and warranted a reduction of his sentence.

Mohamed v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65 (10 Feb 2010)On 10 February 2010, the Court of Appeal (the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench presiding) published its decision in the protracted and highly publicised litigation involving Binyam Mohamed.  The decision addresses a number of important legal issues that derive from the working relationship between the intelligence services of the UK and the USA, including the appropriate balance between non-disclosure and public-interest immunity, and principles of open justice.  As the Chief Justice astutely concluded (at [57]), the decision also engages ‘concepts of democratic accountability and, ultimately, the rule of law itself’.