Van Colle & Anor v Hertfordshire Police [2007] EWCA Civ 325 (24 April 2007)The UK Court of Appeal has held that the right to life imposes a positive obligation on responsible authorities to take reasonable steps to safeguard the lives of those in their jurisdiction as against known and immediate risks.

R (on the application of H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2007] All ER (D) 29 (Apr)The claimant was the subject of hospital and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 (UK). The Mental Health Review Tribunal reviewed the claimant's position and subsequently ordered the claimant's discharge under s 73 of the Act on the condition that, amongst other things, the claimant 'shall comply' with medication prescribed by a specified doctor.  The claimant applied for revocation of this and other conditions and sought an order for absolute discharge on the basis that it interfered with his right under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that '[e]veryone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence'.

Main(R) v Minister for Legal Aid [2007] EWHC 742 (2 April 2007)The UK High Court of Justice has quashed a decision by the Minister for Legal Aid to refuse the family of two people killed in a train crash funding to be legally represented at the coroner's inquest.  Central to the decision was the finding that funding was necessary to carry out an effective investigation into the accident pursuant to art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Copland v United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 62617/00 (3 April 2007)The European Court of Human Rights has held that a public college which monitored an employee’s telephone, email and internet usage without her knowledge engaged in conduct amounting to an interference with her right to respect for private life and correspondence within the meaning of art 8 of the European Convention.

Keogh v R [2007] EWCA Crim 528The UK Court of Appeal has held that the requirement under the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) that, so far as it is possible to do so, legislation be interpreted and applied compatibly with human rights required that legislation which, on its natural meaning imposed a burden on defendants to establish their innocence, be read in such a way as to impose this substantive obligation on the prosecution.

Andrey Frolov v Russia [2007] ECHR 205/02 (29 March 2007)  In a series of recent cases, the European Court of Human Rights has found conditions of detention in prisons to be incompatible with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined in art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A number of principles can be ascertained from the cases of Andrey Frolov v Russia (Application No 205/02, 29 March 2007), Istratii and others v Moldova (Application No 8721/05, 27 March 2007) and Todor Todorov v Bulgaria (Application No 50765/99, 5 April 2007).

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 (Can)On 23 February 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2001 (Can) relating to the detention of permanent residents and foreign nationals on the basis that the provisions contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The Canadian Parliament was given one year to rewrite the IRPA in accordance with the Charter.

R v Williams [2007] VSC 2 (15 January 2007)The Supreme Court of Victoria has substantively considered the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 (Vic) for the first time.

Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd v Planning and Land Authority [2006] ACTSC 122 (15 December 2006) The ACT Supreme Court has recently considered the application of s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), which provides that, ‘In working out the meaning of a Territory law, an interpretation that is consistent with human rights is as far as possible to be preferred.’ 

Holomiov v Moldova, (Application No 30649/05), 7 November 2006 (European Court of Human Rights) The European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of art 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the authorities’ failure to provide a prisoner with medical care appropriate to his conditions.

On 13 November 2006, the UN Human Rights Committee further elaborated on what constitutes arbitrary detention for the purposes of art 9(1) of the ICCPR, finding that there must be ‘appropriate justification’ for continued mandatory detention in light of the circumstances of the particular case.

Hanan Al-Rawahi v Mohammad Ali Niazi [2006] ACTSC 84 (15 September 2006) The ACT Supreme Court has recently considered the relevance of the right to a fair trial under s 21 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) to the extension of time limits in civil proceedings.