City of Johannesburg and Others v Mazibuko and Others (489/08) [2009] ZASCA 20 (25 March 2009) In this case, the Supreme Court of South Africa considered whether a local authority had a duty under the South African Constitution to provide free water to Phiri residents who could not afford to pay for such water themselves.  The Court confirmed that all people in South Africa have the right to access sufficient water pursuant to s 27 of the South African Bill of Rights.  It was held that 'sufficient water' is the quantity of water required for dignified human existence.  On the facts of this case, Phiri residents were found to be entitled to 42 litres of water per person per day.  Water metres which restricted Phiri residents' access to water were held to be unlawful.

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Li, 2009 FCA 85 (CanLII) (17 March 2009) The Federal Court of Appeal of Canada ('FCA') has held that indefinite detention is a violation of the right to liberty and security of person.

AM & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 219 (17 March 2009) The UK Court of Appeal has affirmed that the government has an obligation to conduct an independent investigation where there is credible evidence of a potential breach of arts 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition against ill-treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

State of Victoria v Turner [2009] VSC 66 (4 March 2009) In this case, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered whether it was bound by the interpretive provision in s 32 of the Charter when determining whether the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made an error of law in a decision relating to a proceeding commenced prior to 1 January 2007.

DPP (Cth) v Barbaro [2009] VSCA 26 (3 March 2009) The Victorian Court of Appeal has considered whether the enactment of the Charter necessitates a change to the treatment of delay under the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

Nichoson & Ors v Knaggs & Ors [2009] VSC 64 (27 February 2009) The Victorian Supreme Court adopted a human rights approach to the issue of legal capacity for those who have disabilities.  In accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the 'CRPD'), Vickery J accepted the wide construction given to legal capacity and found that courts must ensure that the rights of people with disabilities are given support that is proportional to their needs and that conflicts of interest and undue influence do not occur.

R v Fearnside [2009] ACTCA 3 (24 February 2009) This case establishes the principle that the requirement, set out at s 30 the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), to interpret laws compatibly with human rights, requires that laws be interpreted compatibly with human rights as reasonably limited under the HRA, rather than with human rights in their entirety.

09-085 [2009] VMHRB (23 February 2009) In this case, which concerned the review of a community treatment order ('CTO') that prescribed a drug with serious side-effects, a number of significant issues arose in relation to the Charter:Is the Board a 'public authority' and/or a 'court or tribunal' for the purposes of the Charter?Are the authorised psychiatrist and the mental health services public authorities under the Charter?What is the meaning and application of 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' in s 10(b) of the Charter?Does the limitations provision contained in s 7(2) of the Charter apply to s 10 rights?What is the impact of s32 of the Charter on the Board's interpretation of the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic)?

A and Ors v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 3455/05 [Grand Chamber] (19 February 2009) In a case relating to the detention of non-national terror suspects in the UK, the European Court of Human Rights held that:detention pending deportation cannot be justified under art 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights and is therefore a violation of the right to liberty (under art 5(1)) unless some action is actually being taken with a view to the deportation of the detainee; andwhere allegations against detainees are in general terms and the critical evidence is undisclosed to those detainees (even in the interests of national security) such that the detainee cannot effectively challenge the allegations, the right of a detained person to challenge the lawfulness of his/her detention before a court (under art 5(4)) is breached due to a lack of procedural fairness.

RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 10 (18 February 2009) In this case the House of Lords dismissed appeals by RB and U, Algerian nationals, from the Court of Appeal which had allowed their appeals from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ('SIAC') and remitted their cases to it for reconsideration.  The House of Lords also allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department from the Court of Appeal which had allowed Omar Othman's (aka Abu Qatada, a Jordanian national) appeal on the basis that his expulsion would contravene art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Boulter v Nova Scotia Power Incorporation, 2009 NSCA 17 (CanLII) (13 February 2009)This decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal considered whether discrimination on the grounds of poverty is contrary to the right to equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights.  The Court held that poverty is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Charter of Rights and it is therefore lawful to discriminate against low income earners.The decision also confirms that the comparator test must be used when determining whether conduct is directly or indirectly discriminatory under the Charter of Rights.

XFJ v Director of Public Transport (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2009] VCAT 96 (9 February 2009) The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has confirmed that society's interests in an individual's rehabilitation can override the principle of 'Open Justice' and the right to freedom of expression.  Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd ('HWT') applied to lift an order suppressing the identity of a man who had previously been acquitted of murdering his wife by reason of insanity and had recently been issued a taxi driver's licence.  VCAT declined to revoke the order because publication of the man's identity could adversely affect his rehabilitation.