AC (Guardianship) [2009] VCAT 1186 (8 July 2009)This case concerns AC, a 26 year old man with a mild intellectual disability who has been living at Sandhurst since 2000.  Due to a history of assaultive and sexualised behaviours, AC was placed on a Supervised Treatment Order (‘STO’) under the Disability Act 2006 (Vic).  The STO required him to be under constant supervision and allowed him to leave Sandhurst only in restricted circumstances and under the supervision of two staff members.  In 2009, AC applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review of the STO. AC wanted the STO to be revised so that he could come and go from Sandhurst as he wished during the daytime and have much more freedom in the community. AC stated that he was prepared to remain at Sandhurst and receive treatment voluntarily.  The Department of Human Services opposed AC’s application.

Homeground Services v Mohamed (Residential Tenancies) [2009] VCAT 1131 (6 July 2009)The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) has held that a non-profit welfare agency acted unlawfully pursuant to s 38(1) of the Victorian Charterin seeking to evict a young tenant from transitional housing in accordance with a ‘youth tenancy policy’ in circumstances in which it was likely that the tenant would thereby become homeless.

Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v Switzerland (No 2) [2009] ECHR 32772/02 (30 June 2009) In VgT v Switzerland (No 2) the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that not only should the State refrain from interfering with an individual’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, but in some circumstances there is a positive obligation on the State to ensure that an individual is afforded guarantees under the Convention.  In this case, the State was required to ensure the full and proper execution of a judgment of the European Court to remedy a breach of the Convention and the failure to adequately do so constituted a fresh breach of the Convention.

AC v Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 (26 June 2009)On 26 June 2009, the Canadian Supreme Court handed down a decision which discussed in detail the right of adolescents to make their own medical decisions.  The Court held that the wishes of the child must be considered when determining what action was in the child’s best interests.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Weaver, R (On the application of) [2009] EWCA Civ 587 (18 June 2009) A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has revisited the vexed issue of the definition of ‘public authority’.  The decision warrants attention for a number of reasons.  First, the decision acts as clear authority that a social landlord is a public authority, and that the act of terminating the tenancy of a tenant is not a private act and is therefore susceptible to judicial review under the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) (‘HRA’).  Second, the decision highlights the need for clear legislative guidance on what constitutes a ‘public authority’.  This is discussed further below.

Nolan v MBF Investments Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 244 (18 June 2009) The Supreme Court of Victoria recently confirmed that fundamental human rights, both in international law and the Victorian Charter, are relevant interests that must be considered when a mortgagee sells a property to satisfy a debt.  This is especially relevant where a debt is secured over a family home.

Attorney-General's Reference No 3 of 1999: Application by the British Broadcasting Corporation to set aside or vary a Reporting Restriction Order [2009] UKHL 34 (17 June 2009) The House of Lords has held that, in the interests of the right to freedom of expression, it was a reasonable intrusion on the right to privacy to publish the name of a defendant acquitted of rape.

Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes & Ors [2009] ZACC 16 (10 June 2009) The South African Constitutional Court has upheld a High Court decision to grant an application to evict approximately 20,000 residents of the informal settlement known as the Joe Slovo settlement.  The eviction was sought by Thubelisha Homes (a government company), the Minister for Housing and the Minster of Local Government and Housing (together, the ‘Respondents’) for the development of an affordable housing project in the Western Cape (the ‘Project’).

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF & Anor [2009] UKHL 28 (10 June 2009) Nine Lords of the House of Lords have unanimously followed the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR) in the decision of A v United Kingdom.  That decision clarified that where a person subject to a 'control order' under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA) challenges its validity, he or she must be given sufficient information to effectively answer the allegations against them.  The reading down of the PTA to include a right to a fair trial means control orders cannot be based entirely on evidence undisclosed to the 'controlee'.

Swancom Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2009] VCAT 923 (10 June 2009) On 10 June 2009, Deputy President Dwyer and Member Bensz of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal handed down a decision which discussed the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 to local government planning decisions.

Opuz v Turkey [2009] ECHR 33401/02 (9 June 2009) In June 2009, the European Court of Human Rights found Turkey in violation of its obligations, under arts 2, 3 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to protect the applicant and her mother from domestic violence.  In the landmark decision, the Court held that domestic violence is a form of discrimination that states are required to eliminate and remedy.  The case brings the Court’s jurisprudence in line with international human rights law, which has long recognised such violence as a form of discrimination.

R v Godin, 2009 SCC 26 (CanLII) (4 June 2009)The Supreme Court of Canada upheld an appeal for a stay of proceedings where there was a delay of 30 months between the accused being charged and brought to trial.  The Court held that the accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated.