Systemic overcrowding in prisons may amount to inhuman and degrading treatment
Mandic and Jovic v Slovenia [2011] ECHR Application Nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10 (20 October 2011)
In this case, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that inadequate physical conditions of detention in prison, in particular insufficient personal space for prisoners resulting from systemic overcrowding, can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. If a prison does not meet certain minimum standards, the threshold of severity necessary to amount to a breach of article 3 may be crossed even in the absence of a positive intention to humiliate or debase prisoners.
Read More
Detention of person with mental illness was arbitrary and unlawful
Sessay, R (on the application of) v South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2011] EWHC 2617 (QB) (13 October 2011)
The High Court of England and Wales considered the circumstances in which the compulsory admission to hospital of non-compliant incapacitated patients under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) may constitute a deprivation of liberty in contravention of article 5 the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Read More
High Court affirms right to gender identity and expression
AB v Western Australia [2011] HCA 42 (6 October 2011)
The High Court delivered a unanimous judgment affirming the right of transgender people to have their gender officially recognised after undergoing medical or surgical procedures, even if not all of their reproductive organs have been altered. The Court emphasised the purpose of the Gender Reassignment Act 2000 (WA) to alleviate suffering and discrimination transgender people face in society by providing legal recognition of their self-identification and perception of gender.
Read More
Government guidance for intelligent officers should recognise that ‘hooding’ will normally constitute torture or ill-treatment
Equality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister & Ors [2011] EWHC 2401 (Admin) (3 October 2011)
The High Court of England and Wales has partially upheld claims by the Equality & Human Rights Commision and Mr Al Bazzouni (a former detainee) that Government guidance regarding what British intelligence officers should do if they suspect detainees being interviewed overseas are at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is unlawful.
Read More
Combating drug use while respecting Charter rights
Canada (Attorney-General) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 (30 September 2011)
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the failure of the Minister of Health to grant an exemption to allow a safe injecting facility to operate notwithstanding federal anti-drug laws violated the right to life, liberty and security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was because the evidence clearly demonstrated that the safe injecting facility was effective in saving lives and reducing drug-related harm.
Read More
People detained pending deportation have the right to timely and adequate reasons for arrest in a language they can understand
Mahajna v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2481 (Admin) (30 September 2011)
The High Court of England and Wales has upheld the right of people under arrest to be given adequate factual and legal reasons for arrest in a timely manner and in a language they understand, in line with article 5(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Justice Nicol of the High Court emphasised that “[r]ights under the common law and the Convention are intended to be real rights and confer real benefits. The Claimant was entitled to know, at least in the broadest terms, why he was being arrested.”
Read More
Federal Court upholds the right to be free from racial discrimination
Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 (28 September 2011)
Federal Court judge Bromberg J recently held that Herald Sun opinion columnist Andrew Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times had contravened the racial vilification provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) in two articles published in 2009. Bromberg J highlighted that “[a]t the heart of any attempt to secure freedom from racial prejudice and intolerance is the protection of equality and the inherent dignity of all human beings.”
Read More
United Kingdom justified in differentiating between social housing applicants based on conditional immigration status
Bah v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1448 (27 September 2011)
The European Court of Human Rights has held that a person's immigration status is a relevant ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, as a person's immigration status involves an element of choice, the ECHR held that the justification needed for differential treatment on this basis need not be as weighty as where differential treatment is based on an inherent characteristic such as sex or nationality.
Read More
Solicitor-client privilege: sacred principle or conduit for crime?
Federation of Law Societies of Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 BCSC 1270 (27 September 2011)
In the context of international pressure on states to combat anti-money laundering and terrorism financing, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has held that limitations on solicitor-client privilege imposed by anti-money laundering legislation violate principles of fundamental justice in contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision will remove the legal profession from the operation of two pieces of anti-money laundering and terrorist financing legislation in Canada.
Read More
Care and protection of children a relevant consideration in granting bail or sentencing a parent
Aldridge v R [2011] ACTCA 20 (22 September 2011)
The ACT Court of Appeal has held that, by operation of s 11(2) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), the arrangements for care of children is a relevant factor to be taken into account in the grant of bail, sentencing, and the grant of bail pending appeal against sentence.
Read More
European Court of Human Rights rules on the right to freedom of expression in the context of employment
Palomo Sanchez v Spain [2011] ECHR 1319 (12 September 2011)
In this case, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered whether the dismissal of employees for publishing offensive material in a trade union newsletter contravened the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The majority of the Grand Chamber concluded that the dismissals were reasonable and that no contravention of articles 10 and 11 had occurred.
Read More
High Court affirms constitutionality of Charter and considers key interpretative provisions
Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)
The High Court's decision in Momcilovic v The Queen upholds the constitutional validity of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). However, the six separate judgments provide varied guidance as to how the Charter should be applied in practice.
Read More
Rioters’ rights: Police obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights during protests and demonstrations
Castle & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 2317 (Admin) (8 September 2011)
The High Court of England and Wales has dismissed claims made on behalf of three school children that their containment at last year’s demonstrations in central London was in breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘EHCR’). The High Court held that the police action taken on the day, “having regard to the need to safeguard children and to promote their welfare, was necessary, proportionate and lawful”.
Read More
VCAT did not have human rights jurisdiction in public housing matter: Court of Appeal strikes "collateral" blow to Victorian Charter
Director of Housing v Sudi [2011] VSCA 266 (6 September 2011)
The Victorian Court of Appeal has decided that VCAT, in an application for a possession order under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, did not have power to consider whether, by making the application for the possession order, the Director of Housing had complied with s 38(1) of the Charter. Section 38(1) states it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with, or fail to give proper consideration to, a relevant human right.
Read More
Treatment and conditions of detention for women must be gender-sensitive, says CEDAW
Inga Abramova v Belarus, Communication No. 23/2009, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008 (29 August 2011)
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Belarus’ treatment of a woman detained under administrative arrest violated articles 2(a)-2(b), 2(e)-2(f), 3 and 5(a) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), read in conjunction with article 1 and the Committee’s General Recommendation No. 19 on violence against women.
Read More
There’s no place like home: The case of Mr Nystrom
Nystrom v Australia, UN Doc CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007 (18 August 2011)
On 18 August 2011 the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee published its View adopted in the Communication (Communication No. 1557/2007) submitted by Stefan Lars Nystrom.
In this landmark decision the Committee found that Australia had violated article 12(4) (the right to enter his own country), and articles 17 and 23(1) (protection from arbitrary interference with his family life) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Read More
Failure to protect woman effectively against domestic violence violated Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women
V.K. v. Bulgaria, UN Doc CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008 (17 August 2011)
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Bulgaria’s failure to protect V.K. effectively against domestic violence amounted to violations of articles 2(c)-2(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, read in conjunction with article 1, and article 5(a), read in conjunction with article 16(1) and General Recommendation No 19 on violence.
Read More
Treatment of young rape survivor violated ICCPR
L.N.P. v Argentine Republic, Comm. No. 1610/2007, UN Doc. CCPR/C/102/D/1610/2007 (2011)
The Human Rights Committee found that Argentina’s treatment of a 15 year-old rape survivor violated articles 2(3), 3, 7, 14(1), 17, 24 and 26 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
Read More
Canadian Appeal Court considers scope of the right to legal counsel
R v JWC, 2011 ONCA 550 (10 August 2011)
This is an unusual criminal law case in which the only evidence against the defendant, JWC, was a statement he made to police in which he confessed to numerous sexual assaults of a number of patients in his care while working at various group homes for people with disabilities.
Read More
Failure to prevent avoidable maternal death violates rights to life, health and non-discrimination
Alyne da Silva Pimentel Teixeira (deceased) v Brazil, CEDAW, UN Doc CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008 (2011)
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has found that Brazil’s failure to prevent the avoidable maternal death of Alyne da Silva, a 28-year-old Brazilian woman of African descent, violated articles 2 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in conjunction with article 1. The Committee’s landmark decision is the first maternal mortality case decided by a UN treaty body.
Read More
UK’s detention of individual suffering mental illness amounted to torture and ill-treatment
The Queen (on the application of S) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCH 2120 (Admin) (5 August 2011)
The Claimant, S, sought judicial review of the decision to detain him pending deportation. Owing to circumstances relating to his mental illness, the High Court of England and Wales held that S's detention amounted to false imprisonment and a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibit inhuman or degrading treatment and protect an individual's right to liberty and security of the person, respectively.
Read More
Charter should be interpreted beneficially but not applied retrospectively
Collier v Austin Health & Ors [2011] VSC 344 (27 July 2011)
The Supreme Court of Victoria's recent decision in Collier v Austin Health [2011] VSC 344 confirms that section 32 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) will not operate in cases where the facts and events in issue occurred prior to the Charter's commencement. At the same time, however, the decision provides a useful reminder of the common law requirement that — even in the absence of the Charter's direction to interpret statutory provisions compatibly with human rights — courts and tribunals must interpret the provisions of protective human rights legislation as liberally and beneficially as their language will allow.
Read More
State breached positive obligations to safeguard and protect the right to respect for private life by failing to prevent dog attack
Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v Romania [2011] ECHR 1193 (26 July 2011)
In an important judgment on the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights held that Romania violated article 8 of the Convention through failing to take sufficient measures to protect the physical and psychological integrity of the applicant, Ms Georgeta Stoicescu. Romania was also found to have breached article 6 of the Convention for denying the applicant an effective right of access to a court.
Read More
Restrictions on head dress an impermissible violation of the right to freedom of religion
Singh v France, UN Doc CCPR/C/D/102/18767/2009 (22 July 2011)
The UN Human Rights Committee recently decided that a French regulation requiring persons to appear bare headed in identity photographs used for residency permits constitutes an impermissible limitation on the applicant’s freedom of religion in violation of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Read More
Charter Promotes and Protects Rights of Person with Disability
P J B v Melbourne Health & Anor (Patrick’s case) [2011] VSC 327 (19 July 2011)
In this case, the Supreme Court of Victoria held that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal had both failed to interpret law consistently with human rights and had itself failed to act compatibly with human rights in appointing an administrator to sell the home of a man with disability against his wishes.
Read More
Detention for mental health purposes must be subject to strict safeguards and review
LM v Latvia [2011] ECHR (Application No 26000/02, 19 July 2011)
In LM v Latvia, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed the importance of ensuring that domestic law provides adequate legal protections to persons with mental illness who are involuntarily detained and treated.
The decision is an important guide as to what may constitute “fair and proper procedures” which ultimately safeguard individuals against the arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in psychiatric institutions.
Read More
State bears responsibility for deaths in custody
Zhumbaeva v Kyrgyzstan, UN Doc CCPR/C/102/D/1756/2008 (19 July 2011)
In this case, the United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Kyrgyzstan was responsible for injuries to, and the death of, a man held in police custody. The Committee based its decision on the principles that a State assumes responsibility for a person that it takes into custody, and that, where that person's rights are violated, the State must properly investigate and prosecute those responsible to remedy the violation. The Committee's decision is relevant in a Victorian context because deaths in custody have been and remain an important issue in the Australian political landscape.
Read More
Balancing the right to a fair and public hearing with national security
Home Office v Tariq [2011] UKSC 35 (13 July 2011)
In this case, the United Kingdom Supreme Court considered the nature and scope of the right to a fair hearing and, in particular, the circumstances in which the nature of allegations against a person can be withheld from them in the interests of national security.
Read More
Human rights obligations can travel: The extraterritoriality of human rights and the Iraq War
Al-Jedda v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1092 (7 July 2011) Al-Skeini & Ors v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1093 (7 July 2011)
The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) recently decided two applications brought against the United Kingdom under Article 34 the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).
Read More
Human rights at what cost? Balancing human dignity and economic constraints
R (on the application of McDonald) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2011] UKSC 33 (6 July 2011)
The UK Supreme Court has held that the failure to provide an elderly woman with night-time care assistance to help her use the toilet, and instead requiring she use incontinence pads and special sheets (even though she is not incontinent), does not breach the right to privacy in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Read More
Right to fair trial without unreasonable delay
R v Kara Lesley Mills [2011] ACTSC 109 (1 July 2011)
In R v Kara Lesley Mills [2011] ACTSC 109 (R v Mills), the ACT Supreme Court delivered an important judgment concerning the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings with a particular focus on circumstances that may constitute 'unreasonable delay'. While the decision largely turned on the facts of the case, it serves as an important guide to what may amount to 'unreasonable delay' and the options available to the Court to provide a suitable remedy.
Read More
Right to legal representation in disciplinary proceedings
R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30 (29 June 2011)
The UK Supreme Court has held that where one set of proceedings determines an individual’s civil rights or obligations, they may have procedural rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) both in those proceedings and in earlier proceedings that have a “substantial influence or effect” on those proceedings.
Read More
Deportation to situations of generalised violence may breach human rights
Sufi and Elmi v The United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1045 (28 June 2011)
The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has found that the return of two Somali nationals to Mogadishu, Somalia would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) because of the situation of general violence there.
Read More
State bears onus to explain injuries in custody
Gubacsi v Hungary [2011] ECHR 1044 (28 June 2011)
In this case, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) confirmed that ill-treatment of persons in custody by police, if sufficiently serious, may amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). In circumstances where a person enters police custody in good health, and is injured when released, the State bears the onus to provide a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused.
Read More
Shock jocks beware: Restrictions on broadcasting offensive material not a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression
R (on the application of) v The Office of Communications [2011] EWCA Civ 692 (17 June 2011)
This case concerns an appeal against the Divisional Court’s finding that a radio presenter’s right to freedom of expression was not infringed by an adverse ruling of the Broadcasting Code’s statutory regulator (Ofcom). The appellant challenged Ofcom’s finding on the ground that it fell foul of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 encompasses the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference, subject to restrictions as prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others. The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (EWCA) unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Read More
When will disciplinary action constitute a ‘punishment’?
Psychology Board of Australia v Ildiri (Occupational and Business Regulation) [2011] VCAT 1036 (14 June 2011)
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has held that deregistering a practitioner for unprofessional conduct under the Health Professions Registration Act 2005 (Vic) is not punishment and therefore does not infringe the right to freedom from double punishment under s 26 of the Victorian Charter.
Read More
The right to family life and liberty of persons affected by disability
London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary & Anor [2011] EWHC 1377 (COP) (09 June 2011)
In this case, a 21 year old man with autism and severe learning disabilities who was institutionalised, rather than being permitted to return to his home under the care of his father, has been held to have been deprived of the right to liberty and family life. The England and Wales High Court has ruled that that the public authority who kept the man in a care facility for nearly a year, did so unlawfully.
Read More
No doubt over lawfulness of abortions
Abortion Supervisory Committee v Right to Life New Zealand Inc [2011] NZCA 246 (1 June 2011)
On 1 June 2011 the New Zealand Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the appeal and cross-appeal from the judgment of Justice Miller in the High Court’s 2008 decision in Right to Life New Zealand Inc v Abortion Supervisory Committee [2008] 2 NZLR 825 on the rights of the unborn child and the powers of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC) under the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 (CSA Act). The majority (2:1) upheld Justice Miller’s finding that an unborn child has no express right to life, but held that his view that there was nevertheless “reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions” was inappropriate and had no legal effect. The majority also rejected Justice Miller’s finding that the ASC’s general supervisory role included a statutory obligation to audit the decisions of certifying consultants on the lawfulness of abortions in individual cases.
Read More
European Court holds that failure to provide access to reproductive healthcare may violate prohibition against torture and ill-treatment
R.R. v Poland [2011] ECHR 828 (26 May 2011)
In this case the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered judgment in favour of an applicant, Ms R.R., who brought a case againstPoland for a violation of arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 3 of the Convention protects the right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 8 of the Convention, inter alia, protects an individual’s right to respect for privacy and family life. This case is a significant step forward in the protection of reproductive rights, with third-party comments submitted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, and the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme, University of Toronto, Canada.
Read More
South African Constitutional Court considers the right of appeal to or review by a higher court
Qhinga and Others v S (CCT 50/10) [2011] ZACC 18 (25 May 2011)
The Constitutional Court in South Africa recently considered an application for leave to appeal against a dismissal by the Supreme Court of Appeal of a petition filed by the applicants on the basis that relevant portions of the record of the proceeding in the High Court were not properly considered in the applicants’ petition. It was held that the applicants did not have the benefit of a right of appeal or review by a higher court as envisioned in s 35(3)(o) of the Constitution and thus the order made by the Supreme Court of Appeal was dismissed, the petition was set aside and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
Read More
Supreme Court of the United States upholds 'structural injunction' requiring California to reduce its prison population
Brown v Plata, 563 US 2011 (23 May 2011)
On 23 May 2011 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a lower court's decision finding that the conditions in California's overcrowded prisons violated prisoners' Eighth Amendment right not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of the overcrowding, adequate medical care could not be provided to prisoners. The Court reaffirmed US authority that denial of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, violates the Eighth Amendment. What is perhaps more notable is the remedy it upheld, a cap on the prison population. The Court could have ordered the State to provide adequate medical care in its prisons, and accepted the State's plans for achieving that result. The Court instead found that only if the prison population decreased would it be possible for adequate medical care to be provided.
Read More
Indefinite detention of non-convicted persons’ DNA violates right to privacy
GC v The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 (18 May 2011)
On 18 May 2011 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a judgment which considered whether a provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which provided that DNA samples "may be retained after they have fulfilled the purposes for which they were taken but shall not be used by any person except for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime" could be interpreted compatibly with art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and if not, whether police acts of retaining DNA data permanently, were unlawful.
Read More
Balancing the right to privacy and freedom of expression: What is the public interest in private affairs?
CTB v News Group Newspapers Limited [2011] EWHC 1232 (QB) (16 May 2011)
In this case, Eady J of the England and Wales High Court granted an injunction restraining disclosure of the identity of a footballer who had had an extramarital affair. In doing so, the judge first had to consider two competing rights in the European Convention of Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life (art 8) and the right to freedom of expression (art 10). The judge undertook a balancing exercise to determine the relative importance of the two rights in the circumstances. Given the very personal nature of the information and the lack of any real public interest in disclosure, Eady J held that the right to privacy prevailed.
Read More
Formula One boss’s privacy breached, but limited rights to seek an injunction
Mosley v the United Kingdom (48009/08) (10 May 2011)
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against former Formula One boss Max Mosley in the latest round of the well-publicised litigation he initiated in 2008 after the UK newspaper News of the World published an article and photographs alleging he had participated in sexual activities with five prostitutes in a London flat.
Read More
Does the State have a positive obligation to provide housing?
TG, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2011] EWCA Civ 526 (6 May 2011)
The UK Court of Appeal has considered whether a failure to provide housing and other supports to a vulnerable young person breaches their positive obligation to respect the right to a private life. The Court has signposted that ordinarily only failures that amount to ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ will breach the UK’s positive obligation.
Read More
NZ Bill of Rights requires courts to give legislation the meaning which ‘least restricts’ human rights
Valerie Morse v The Police [2010] NZSC 45 (6 May 2011)
The Supreme Court of New Zealand has found that the right to freedom of expression contained in s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) requires an objective approach to the determination of charges of offensive or disorderly behaviour for the purposes of s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (NZ). The provision is directed at behaviour which, when objectively assessed, disrupts order in, or within view of, a public space. Whether those present are offended as a matter of fact, is only one consideration to be taken into account.
Read More
Court supports Charter protection of privacy in police interviews
DPP v KW [2011] VCC (2 May 2011)
The County Court recently handed down a decision in relation to the use by Victoria Police of ‘pretext conversations’ to gather evidence. The matter involved an application by KW to have evidence of a recording of a phone conversation between himself and the complainant excluded in his trial. This recording had been made at a police station using police equipment, although that equipment was operated by the complainant. No warrant had been obtained for the use of this equipment on the basis of Victoria Police’s view that the ‘participant surveillance’ exemption under the Surveillance Devices Act applied to this method of evidence gathering.
Read More
Right to equality and anti-discrimination exemptions
Thales Australia Limited and ADI Munitions Pty Ltd (Anti-Discrimination) [2011] VCAT 729 (29 April 2011)
In this decision the Tribunal granted an exemption from certain provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic) (EO Act) to companies carrying out contracts with American firms in the defence industry. The Tribunal held that although granting an exemption may limit the rights to equality and privacy under ss 8 and 13 of the Charter, it was justified under s 7(2).
Read More
Restricting access to legal abortion may amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the ICCPR
LMR v Argentina, UN Doc CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007 (28 April 2011)
In May 2007, VDA, an Argentine national, submitted a communication to the UN Human Rights Committee on behalf of her daughter, LMR, who has a permanent mental impairment. The communication claimed violations by Argentina of a number of articles under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to freedom from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy, arising out of a denial of access to legal abortion.
Read More
Court will Determine whether a Declaration of Inconsistent Interpretation should be Made During Primary Hearing
Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) & Ors (No 2) [2011] VSC 153 (19 April 2011)
The case involved an application brought by the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria against the Hope Clinic. The application sought to prevent the continuation of representations made by the Hope Clinic as to the benefits of its therapies for sufferers of, amongst other illnesses, cancer. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the representations contravened section 9 of the Fair Trading Act.
Read More
