Gerner v Victoria [2020] HCA 48The High Court rejected a Melbourne business owner's claim that Victoria's Lockdown Directions infringed an implied freedom of movement from the Constitution. The Court's decision upheld the settled approach to constitutional interpretation, confirming the Constitution provides no basis for an implication of freedom of movement that limits legislative or executive power.

Gebrehiwot v State of Victoria [2020] VSCA 315The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) to jury deliberations and damages, in an appeal relating to claims of false imprisonment and battery against Victoria Police.

Minister for Home Affairs v DMA18 as litigation guardian for DLZ18; Minister for Home Affairs v Marie Theresa Arthur as litigation representative for BXD18, Minister for Home Affairs v FRX17 as litigation representative for FRM17; Minister for Home Affairs v DJA18 as litigation representative for DIZ18 [2020] HCA 43The High Court of Australia found that section 494AB(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), a provision which seeks to prevent legal proceedings being taken against the Commonwealth in relation to asylum seekers under the regional processing regime, does not limit the jurisdiction of any court.

Loielo v Giles [2020] VSC 722On 2 November 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the first substantive legal challenge to the validity of greater Melbourne’s lockdown laws. Justice Ginnane held that the curfew imposed between 9pm and 5am in greater Melbourne from 13 to 28 September 2020 (Curfew) was a lawful and proportionate measure in response to mounting cases of COVID-19 in Victoria.

Democratic National Committee v Wisconsin State Legislature 592 U.S. ____ (2020)On 26 October 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed an application by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to extend Wisconsin's deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots for the 2020 Presidential election by six days.

Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2630The New Zealand High Court upheld the minimum voting age at 18 years as a justified limit on the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of age. As the Court found the age to be within a range of reasonable alternatives, this decision deferred the question of whether the voting age should be lowered to Parliament to decide.

German v State of Victoria [2020] VCC 1517On 25 September 2020, the Victorian County Court held that use of body-worn camera footage (‘BWC footage’) obtained from police, ambulance, prison officers, and other prescribed persons under the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) (‘the Act’) cannot be used by courts in civil proceedings.

Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212On 25 August 2020, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that a person diagnosed with a personality disorder should be treated the same as any other person who seeks to rely on an impairment of mental functioning as a mitigating factor in their sentencing.Impairment of mental functioning can be considered as a mitigating factor in a person’s sentencing in accordance with the principles from R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.Before this case, however, the principles set out in R v Verdins were not applicable to people with personality disorders because of the case of DPP v O’Neill (2015) 47 VR 395, which had previously excluded personality disorders from consideration by the courts.

Andrew Borrowdale v Director-General of Health and Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2090A Full Bench (three Judges) of the New Zealand High Court unanimously held that the restrictions imposed by the New Zealand Government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic requiring New Zealanders to stay at home were consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). The Court also held, however, that some public statements went beyond what the orders then permitted and some restrictions were therefore, for a limited time, unlawful.

BNL20 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 1180In August, the Federal Court ordered the Minister for Home Affairs to urgently remove an elderly man with multiple health conditions from a Melbourne immigration detention centre to guard against the serious risk of COVID-19 infection.The man was 68 years old and suffered from health issues including type-2 diabetes and high cholesterol, which meant he was at high risk of severe disease or death if he were to contract COVID-19.

R (on the application of Edward Bridges) v The Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has held that the use of automated facial recognition technology (AFR) by the South Wales Police Force (SWP) unlawfully interfered with Edward Bridges' right to respect for and non-interference by public authorities in his private and family life, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246On 8 August 2020, the Attorney-General successfully sought a mandatory injunction (court order) in the Supreme Court to prevent a planned sit-in protest organised by a group that advocates for the rights of refugees. The protest was to take place on the Story Bridge, a major traffic route in Brisbane, and be a ‘sit-down and not-move-on assembly’ during which arrests would be expected.