R v Briggs-Price [2009] UKHL 19 (29 April 2009) The House of Lords has unanimously held that a confiscation order can be validly made on the basis of matters established by evidence at trial, but in relation to which a defendant has not been charged.  This practice does not infringe the defendant's right to the presumption of innocence or right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Vojnovic v Croatia, UN Doc CCPR/C/95/D/1510/2006 (28 April 2009) The Human Rights Committee held that a lawful termination of tenancy rights under Croatian law amounted to an arbitrary interference with the right to home and violated art 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The termination of the tenancy was held to be arbitrary as it was exercised in an unfair and discriminatory way.

VCAT Makes Declaration of Breach of Human Rights in Major Charter Test CaseOn 23 April 2009, Justice Bell, President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, handed down a much anticipated decision which discussed in detail important aspects of the application and operation of the Charter.  The case concerned the compulsory medical treatment of a man, Mr Kracke, without his consent, and without this treatment having been reviewed by the Mental Health Review Board as required by the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic).

Tornel v Spain, UN Doc CCPR/C/95/D/1473/2006 (24 April 2009) The UN Human Rights Committee has held that the rights of a prisoner's relatives to protection from arbitrary interference with their family life, protected under art 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, will be infringed if prison authorities adopt a 'passive attitude' to keeping them informed of significant changes in the prisoner's heath.

Khadr v Canada (Minister for Justice) [2009] FC 405 (23 April 2009) On 23 April 2009, the Federal Court of Canada handed down a decision which discussed in detail the right of citizens to request their government to provide protection against acts which violate accepted norms of international law during a period of detention in a foreign country.

Kracke v Mental Health Review Board [2009] VCAT 646 (23 April 2009) On 23 April 2009, Justice Bell, President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, handed down a significant decision which discussed in detail important aspects of the application and operation of the Charter.

R v Patrick, 2009 SCC 17 (CanLII) (9 April 2009) The Supreme Court of Canada has held that no privacy interest exists in the contents of garbage bags placed out for collection.  Police had seized garbage bags from an individual's property, and used their contents to justify obtaining a warrant to search his home.  The individual was subsequently convicted of possessing, producing and trafficking ecstasy.  He unsuccessfully argued in the Supreme Court that the police's actions breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

De Simone v Bevnol Constructions and Developments Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal, Neave JA and William AJA, 3 April 2009) The Court of Appeal held that courts and tribunals are bound by ss 24 (right to a fair hearing) and 25 (rights in criminal proceedings) of the Victorian Charter when they exercise functions engaging those rights.In this case, there was a possibility that VCAT had erred by not taking ss 24 and 25 into account when refusing to stay civil proceedings.  However, no substantial injustice was caused by the refusal and the Court of Appeal therefore declined to overturn VCAT's decision.

Wiktorko v Poland [2009] ECHR 14612/02 (31 March 2009) The European Court of Human Rights has held that the treatment of a Polish national, whilst detained at a government-run 'sobering-up centre', constituted degrading treatment in violation of the substantive protection of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The applicant in this case was forcibly undressed by two male employees and was immobilised by restraining belts for a period of ten hours.  Further, the Court held that subsequent investigations and proceedings carried out by Polish authorities were inadequate, in violation of the procedural limb of art 3 of the Convention.

Lam Siu Po v Commissioner of Police [2009] HKCFA 24 (26 March 2009) In a case relating to the validity of a statutory bar to legal representation in police disciplinary proceedings, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong established the following principles:the right to a fair hearing in art 10 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights can apply to disciplinary proceedings; andthe right to a fair hearing requires that a disciplinary tribunal consider permitting the respondent to be legally represented. Excluding the possibility of a tribunal from exercising such discretion will be inconsistent with art 10.

Dixon v Powell River (City), 2009 BCSC 406 (CanLII) (26 March 2009) This case held that the Canadian common law should, wherever possible, be interpreted and developed to accord with the rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Garson J declined to follow earlier defamation case law on the basis that it was inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression.  Her Honour held that a government body cannot sue individuals for defamation when those individuals speak out about the conduct of its governmental functions.

Machele and 67 Others v William Marofane Mailula and Others [2009] ZACC 7 (26 March 2009) The Constitutional Court of South Africa held that eviction will 'always' be a constitutional matter.  The court further held an interim execution order for eviction was appealable where irreparable harm would result, were leave not granted.  The applicants established irreparable harm largely on the basis that eviction involves the indignity and trauma of losing one's home.