Sabet v Medical Practitioners Board [2008] VSC 346 (12 September 2008)The Supreme Court of Victoria considered that the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria was a public authority as well as a tribunal under s 4 of the Charter.  The Court held that the Board did not breach a medical practitioner’s right to be presumed innocent in disciplinary proceedings determining his capacity to practice medicine.

BAE Systems Australia Ltd (Anti-Discrimination) [2008] VCAT 1799 (11 September 2008)VCAT has granted a restricted exemption from employment-related provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic) to a defence-related contractor, allowing the contractor to discriminate against its employees on the basis of nationality.

R (on the application of Ross) v West Sussex Primary Care Trust [2008] EWHC B15 (Admin) (10 September 2008)This case deals with the difficult issue of determining funding priorities in the provision of health care.  In this matter, the England and Wales High Court held that the decision of a health service not to fund a relatively new cancer drug was unreasonable.  The Court held that where a decision of a public authority involves a substantial interference with human rights, substantial justification is required before a court will be satisfied that the decision is reasonable.

X v General Television Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] VSC 344 (8 September 2008)In this case Vickery J decided that it was appropriate in a free and democratic society to temporarily curtail freedom of media expression to guarantee X the right to a fair trial.

MG v Germany, Communication No 1482/2006, CCPR/C/93/D/1482/2006 (2 September 2008)The Human Rights Committee has held that a court-ordered medical examination to assess the competency of a party to participate in legal proceedings violated her right to privacy under art 17 of the ICCPR.  The order violated the ICCPR because the German court based its decision solely on the author’s procedural conduct and written submissions and did not hear from the author personally before making the order.

Aboushanif v Norway, Communication No 1542/2007, CCPR/C/93/D/1542/2007 (2 September 2008)The author, Mr Aboushanif, lodged a Communication under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR claiming that Norway had violated his rights under art 14(5) of the Covenant.  Article 14(5) states that: ‘Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.’

R (B Mohamed) v Foreign Secretary [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin) (21 August 2008)The England and Wales High Court has held that the UK Government has a positive duty to take steps to ensure that a United Kingdom resident about whom the UK Government had exculpatory material had access to that material for the purpose of defending charges under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Kalamiotis v Greece, Communication No 1486/2006, CCPR/C/93/D/1486/2006 (5 August 2008)The Human Rights Committee has found that the State party breached art 2(3) (adequacy of remedy), when read with art 7 (torture and other prohibited treatment), of the ICCPR, by failing to ensure that complaints about mistreatment by police officers were adequately and satisfactorily investigated by competent authorities.

Vajnai v Hungary [2008] ECHR 33629/06 (8 July 2008)The European Court of Human Rights held that there was a violation of art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights when criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for having worn a totalitarian symbol in public.

RS (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 839 (18 July 2008)The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has allowed an appeal by RS, a Zimbabwean national, against a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to dismiss her appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse to allow RS to remain in the United Kingdom for medical treatment and health.

Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v ACT Human Rights Commission [2008] ACTAAT 19 (24 July 2008)The ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal has considered the interpretative principle and permissible limitations on human rights under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) in a case concerning exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation.

R(C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWCA Civ 882 (28 July 2008)In this case, the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that rules introduced to maintain good order and discipline in children detained in Secure Training Centres (‘STCs’) should be quashed for breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and other ill-treatment.