Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23 (05 February 2009)The England and Wales Court of Appeal has held that bylaws which prohibited camping in the vicinity of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston ('the AWE') were an unlawful interference with the right of the appellant, a member of the Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp ('the AWPC'), to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful association under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Davies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (Credit) [2009] VCAT 90 (28 January 2009) This case considered the correct approach to be followed in dealing with unrepresented litigants and balancing their rights to a fair trial and access to justice with defendants' rights.

Austin & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5 (28 January 2009) In this case, the House of Lords dismissed an appeal by a woman claiming that her right to liberty was breached as a result of police crowd control measures in central London.

Leonidis v Greece [2009] ECHR 43326/05 (8 January 2009) In the case of Leonidis v Greece, the European Court of Human Rights considered art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the police shooting of an 18 year old male (Victim).

Andrew Casey v Richard Luke Alcock [2009] ACTCA 1 (23 January 2009)The ACT Court of Appeal has indicated that the UK's Ghaidan approach to legislative construction - which allows a court to depart from the unambiguous meaning of the legislation where necessary to give effect to a designated purpose - does not necessarily apply under the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) or Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) ('HR Act (ACT)').

Wright & Ors v Secretary of State for Health & Anor [2009] UKHL 3 (21 January 2009) The House of Lords has recently issued a declaration of incompatibly under the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) ('HR Act') in relation to the Care Standards Act 2000 (UK) ('Act').  The House of Lords held that the Act may irreparably damage the employment or employment prospects of persons suspected of posing a risk of harm to vulnerable adults.  It is therefore incompatible with the right to a fair hearing and the right to respect for private and family life.

Black v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] UKHL 1 (21 January 2009) The House of Lords has held that the Justice Secretary's power to determine whether certain long-term prisoners should be released on parole does not constitute a breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires the lawfulness of detention to be determined by a court.

Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 26766/05 (20 January 2009) The European Court of Human Rights has held that allowing a witness statement to be admitted as evidence where the witness is not available for cross examination and that evidence is the sole or decisive basis for convicting the accused violates the right to a fair trial provided in arts 6 § 1 and 6 § 3(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Czarnowski v Poland [2009] ECHR 28586/035 (20 January 2009) The Applicant, Mr Edward Czarnowski, lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights against Poland for breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Art 8 provides:'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life...There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'

Erdoğan v Turkey [2009] ECHR 39656/03 (13 January 2009) The European Court of Human Rights recently found that the Government of Turkey, having ordered lawyer Ayhan Erdoğan to pay compensation for remarks that he made against a public figure during court proceedings, had breached Mr Erdoğan's right to freedom of speech in violation of art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.Article 10 of the Convention guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to 'impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers' (art 10(1)), subject to such restrictions and penalties as are 'prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society… for the protection of the reputation or rights of others' (art 10(2)).

TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonisparti v Norway [2008] ECHR 21132/05 (11 December 2008)In this case, the European Court of Human Rights considered the right to freedom of expression in the context of political advertising in the media.  This judgment again shows that there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the legitimate aim pursued by a statutory prohibition and the means deployed to achieve that aim.

RJE v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2008] VSCA 131 (18 December 2008)In this case, Nettle J of the Victorian Court of Appeal considered the scope and operation of s 32(1) of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights, which provides that ‘so far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights’.