Human Rights Case Summaries

Gafgen v Germany [2010] ECHR 759 (1 June 2010)

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has found, by majority, that a threat of torture amounted to inhuman treatment, but was not sufficiently cruel to amount to torture within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The Court also considered that the applicant remained a victim of the violation, despite limited remedial actions taken by the State party.  Further, it held that the applicant had been afforded a fair trial, because his confessions obtained by way of the breach had been excluded from evidence, even though real evidence obtained as a result of the confession evidence was not excluded.

Gonzalez v Guyana, UN Doc CCPR/C/98/D/1246/2004 (21 May 2010)

The UN Human Rights Committee has held that an undue delay in judicial proceedings to naturalize Mr Gonzalez as a citizen of Guyana constituted unreasonable and arbitrary interference with the right to family in violation of art 17(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The Committee also opined the right to a fair hearing was compromised by procedural delays in violation of art 14(1) of the ICCPR.  The delays were found to adversely affect Mr Gonzalez’s application for citizenship.

Kononov v Latvia [2010] ECHR 667 (17 May 2010)

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered whether criminal law was retrospectively applied to convict Mr Kononov, in violation of art 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Grand Chamber had to assess whether, at the time of the offence, international law provided a legal basis to convict Mr Kononov for war crimes and, furthermore, whether he could he have foreseen that his actions would make him guilty of those offences.  Unless both tests were satisfied, the conviction would contravene art 7. The Grand Chamber also considered how the extension of statutory limitations should be treated under Article 7.

Michelle Dawson v Transport Accident Commission [2010] VCAT 796 (13 May 2010)

Ms Dawson was seriously injured in a car accident on 13 October 2005.  As a result of her injuries Ms Dawson received a number of therapies in accordance with her entitlements under s 60 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic), funded by the Transport Accident Commission (TAC).  After having children, Ms Dawson requested that the TAC pay for child care services to enable her to continue rehabilitation.  The TAC denied her request and Ms Dawson filed an application for review with VCAT.

Smith v Hobsons Bay City Council [2010] VCAT 668 (12 May 2010)

A recent VCAT decision establishes that a planning scheme provision limiting views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows is not incompatible with the Charter.  VCAT also held that a local council does not act in a way that is incompatible with the Charter when exercising its discretion to maintain, modify or delete a planning permit condition requiring the overlooking of premises to be mitigated.

Krumpholz v Austria [2010] ECHR 341 (18 March 2010)

In Krumpholz v Austria, the European Court of Human Rights held that deeming the owner of a vehicle to have committed a traffic offence (by virtue of their ownership of the vehicle) breaches the European Convention right to a fair hearing and presumption of innocence.

R v Momcilovic [2010] VSCA 50 (17 March 2010)

In a landmark decision, the Victorian Court of Appeal has unanimously held that:

• s 32(1) of the Charter is not a ‘special’ rule of statutory interpretation, but rather a statutory directive that requires all persons engaged in the task of statutory interpretation to ‘explore all possible interpretations of the provision(s) in question, and adopt that interpretation which least infringes Charter rights’;
• the issue of ‘justification’ pursuant to s 7(2) arises only if it is not ‘possible’ to interpret legislation compatibly with human rights;
• any infringement of human rights should be ‘demonstrably justified’ by clear, cogent and persuasive evidence;
• where an infringement can not be demonstrably justified, the Court should grant a Declaration of Inconsistent Interpretation, such declarations being ‘central’ to and ‘exemplifying the dialogue model of human rights legislation’.

Mohamed v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65 (10 Feb 2010)

On 10 February 2010, the Court of Appeal (the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench presiding) published its decision in the protracted and highly publicised litigation involving Binyam Mohamed.  The decision addresses a number of important legal issues that derive from the working relationship between the intelligence services of the UK and the USA, including the appropriate balance between non-disclosure and public-interest immunity, and principles of open justice.  As the Chief Justice astutely concluded (at [57]), the decision also engages ‘concepts of democratic accountability and, ultimately, the rule of law itself’.

G, R (on the application of) v X School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1 (20 January 2010)

The English Court of Appeal has held that proceedings that are not by themselves determinative of civil rights or obligations may still be subject to the requirements of art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights where the outcome of the proceedings will have a substantial influence or effect on the determination of those rights or obligations.

Orobator v HMP Holloway & Anor [2010] EWHC 58 (Admin) (20 January 2010)

In this case, the England and Wales High Court rejected a British citizen’s challenge to her detention in the UK after being convicted of drug offences in Laos.  While the Court accepted that the claimant had been treated unfairly, it was not satisfied her trial and conviction in Laos amounted to a ‘flagrant denial of justice’ such as to justify her release from prison.

A W Khan v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 27(12 January 2010)

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the deportation of a convicted heroin trafficker, who had not re-offended since release from prison and had developed strong ties with a country based on long-term residency, family and children, constituted a violation of the applicant’s right to private and family life.