Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 19
This decision is of significance because it recognises that the exile of a citizen is a punitive action that has serious consequences for the individual involved
Read MoreHer Majesty The Queen and Attorney General of Quebec v Alexandre Bissonnete 2022 SCC 23
Bissonnette is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that life sentences without a possibility of parole constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Read MoreVitality Works Australia Pty Ltd v Yelda (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 147
On 19 July 2021, the New South Wales Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in favour of the respondent, Ms Yelda and dismissed the appeal by Vitality Works Australia Pty Ltd (Vitality Works).
Read MorePlaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
Where a person’s visa is mandatorily cancelled on character grounds under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act), s 501CA provides a procedure for the Minister to invite the former visa holder to make representations if they consider the cancellation decision should be revoked.
Read MoreCommission on Human Rights of the Philippines, National Inquiry on Climate Change (2022)
On 6 May 2022, the Philippines Commission on Human Rights (Commission) released its findings from its inquiry into the world’s largest producers of crude oil, natural gas, coal and cement (Carbon Majors). The Commission released a report which established that corporations can be held responsible for the human rights violations that result from climate change.
Read MoreRuddick v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] HCA 9
Mr John Ruddick (the applicant) challenged the constitutional validity of recent amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) (the Act) which limit registration of political parties whose name or logo contains a word in common with that of a previously registered political party.
Read MoreRyan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] FCAFC 36
Mr Ryan commenced proceedings against the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force alleging that the Commissioner had engaged in unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability in contravention of s 15(2)(b) and (d) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
Read MoreTataskweyak Cree Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1442 (CanLII)
The proceeding involved a court determination about whether fees payable to the Applicants' counsel were "fair and reasonable" in accordance with established case law, following negotiation of a settlement agreement with the state of Canada.
Read MoreThompson v Minogue [2021] VSCA 358
The Victorian Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against the Supreme Court’s earlier decision that the directions at Barwon Prison that Dr Craig Minogue submit to random urine tests, and strip searches before the tests, were incompatible with his rights to privacy and to be treated with dignity while deprived of liberty in breach of section 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter).
Read MoreQuirk v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2021] FCA 1587
A recent decision from Perram J of the Federal Court has confirmed that, in the absence of specific protections under whistleblowing laws, blowing the whistle to the media about wrongdoing at work is not a workplace right for the purpose of general protections in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Read MoreOwen-D'Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services [2021] QSC 273
Mr Michael Owen-D’Arcy, a person in prison confined to a maximum security unit, successfully applied for judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and relief under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in respect of two related decisions that sought to continue the solitary confinement that had been imposed on him since 2013.
Read MoreR v Zerafa [2021] NSWDC 547
During a sentencing hearing, the New South Wales District Court considered the “extremely concerning” conditions in which Mr Storm Leigh Zerafa was detained while on remand at the Parklea Correctional Centre when determining his head sentence (the maximum sentence for Mr Zerafa to serve).
Read MoreCOR 2017/3012, Findings, Coroner Olle, 20 September 2021
Raymond Noel, a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Wiradjuri man, died in a car accident following a police pursuit on 25 June 2017.
Read MoreAkers v Victoria Police (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 1060
A recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirms that there is no blanket exemption for surveillance documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic).
Read MoreMillard v Collins [2021] ACTSC 216
On 13 May 2021, the plaintiff commenced proceedings under the Human Rights Act 2004 (the 'HRA') by originating application. This decision concerned an application by the defendants seeking an order that proceedings continue as if they had been commenced by an originating claim, rather than an originating application.
Read MoreCotterill v Romanes [2021] VSC 498
On 17 August 2021, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed a challenge to the validity of the Victorian Government’s lockdown laws. Specifically, Niall JA held that measures to restrict movement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) and associated directions did not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication.
Read MoreTkhelidze v Georgia (Application no. 33056/17)
The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) unanimously held that the Government of the country of Georgia (the Respondent) violated Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The Applicant, a resident of Georgia, complained under Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention that the Georgian authorities’ failed to protect her daughter from domestic violence and to conduct an effective criminal investigation.
Read MoreNestle USA, Inc. v. Doe et al., No. 19-416, 593 U.S. _(2021) (Nestle)
On 17 June 2021, the United States Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision which held Nestlé liable for aiding and abetting child slavery under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The alleged forced labour in Ivory Coast could not be sufficiently linked to Nestlé's conduct in the United States, a nexus required to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts under the ATS.
Read MoreLibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] HCA 18
The High Court of Australia, by majority of 5-2, has held that the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (Cth) (FITS Act) does not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication by imposing registration obligations with respect to communications activities.
Read MoreKatherine Prygodicz & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634 (11 June 2021)
On 11 June 2021, the Federal Court of Australia approved the proposed settlement for a class action brought against the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commonwealth) for its use of an automated debt-collection system, which was intended to recover overpaid social security payments. The proposed settlement requires the Commonwealth to pay $112 million (inclusive of legal costs) in interest to certain group members, to not raise, demand or recover from certain group members any invalid debts, and to consent to court declarations that some of its administrative decisions were not validly made
Read MoreLibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCAFC 90
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) dismissed an application by LibertyWorks Inc which challenged the validity the Health Minister's power to prevent Australians from leaving the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing heavily on the context and purpose of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth), the Court held that while it may be accepted that the travel restrictions were "harsh" and intruded on individual rights, they were nevertheless authorised by the legislation.
Read MoreBig Brother Watch and others v the United Kingdom (Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15)
On 25 May 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) ruled that the United Kingdom's bulk surveillance regime was incompatible with Article 8 (which provides protections for the right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (which provides for the protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Read MoreMr Amjad Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Limited & Others [2020] EWHC 901 (QB) (17 April 2020)
In a potentially significant decision, the High Court of England and Wales has accepted the existence of a duty of care to protect a whistleblower and awarded damages of more than US$10 million. The case raises the intriguing possibility that a cognate duty might exist in Australian law.
Read More[2021] VSC 148 (13 April 2021)
On 29 March 2021, the Supreme Court of Victoria granted bail to a man charged with drug offences on the basis that he would likely be held in custody for three years before he was tried, and because there was immediate availability in a residential rehabilitation centre. The Court referred to the man as a potential “victim” of very lengthy delays in court processes due to COVID-19. The Court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation in addressing the root causes of offending and thereby reducing the likelihood of reoffending and, in turn, keeping the community safer. Ultimately, the Court found that the length of pre-trial custody coupled with the availability of appropriate rehabilitation options amounted to 'exceptional circumstances' sufficient to justify bail.
Read MoreVavřička v the Czech Republic (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application Nos 47621/13, 3867/14, 73094/14, 19298/15, 19306/15 and 43883/15, 8 April 2021)
On 8 April 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Czech Republic's regime for the mandatory vaccination of children did not violate the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Read MoreDRJ & Ors v Commissioner of Victims Rights & Anor [2021] HCASL 53; [2020] NSWCA 242
Under the Victim Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) (VRSA), victims of an "act of violence" are eligible for compensation and for payment of counselling costs.
Read MoreSanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 7) [2021] FCA 237
On 19 March 2021, the Federal Court of Australia held that the operator of the Montara oil field breached its duty of care towards thousands of seaweed farmers in Indonesia by causing, or materially contributing to, the death and loss of seaweed crops via a large oil spill in 2009.
Read MoreHA (a pseudonym) v The Queen S EAPCR 2021 0019 (19 March 2021)
The Victorian Supreme Court overturned a decision to refuse bail to a 15 year old child. In deciding to grant a child bail, Justice Maxwell and Justice Kaye were guided by the “fundamental principle” of the youth legal system to “keep children out of custody wherever possible.” Their Honours also raised the “unacceptable” rate of over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the criminal legal system and considered that the “courts have a duty, in cases such as this, to be conscious of the need to avoid compounding those incarceration rates.”
Read MoreMinogue v Thompson [2021] VSC 56 (16 February 2021)
The Victorian Supreme Court has found that whilst being held in prison, a person’s right to privacy and the right to be treated with dignity while deprived of liberty under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) were violated when he was subjected to random drug and alcohol testing and a strip search before providing a urine sample for such testing. While Justice Richards found that Dr Minogue’s Charter rights were breached, Her Honour is yet to make orders on relief.
Read MoreXAD (by her litigation guardian XAE) v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 12
XAD, a child classified as an “unauthorised maritime arrival” for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), sought (by her litigation guardian XAE) an order to compel either the Minister for Immigration[1] or the Minister for Home Affairs to consider her application for a protection visa.
Read MoreOkpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another [2021] UKSC 3
The UK Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from the Court of Appeal on the basis that two Nigerian communities have an arguable case that a UK domiciled parent company owes them a duty of care in respect of alleged systemic health, safety and environmental failings of its Nigerian subsidiary company.
Read MoreMinister for Home Affairs v Benbrika [2021] HCA 4; (2021) 95 ALJR 166
Division 105A of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) empowers a court to make an order to keep a terrorist offender imprisoned after the expiry of their sentence where they pose an unacceptable risk of committing certain offences if released into the community. By majority (5:2), the High Court held that this power was within the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
Read MoreInquest into the death of Cindy Leigh Miller (COR 2018/1782)
On 22 January 2021, the Coroner handed down his findings in the inquest into the death of Ms Cindy Leigh Miller in the Coroner’s Court of Queensland.
Ms Miller died in custody at the Ipswich Watchhouse on 21 April 2018. Ms Miller’s cause of death was ‘mixed drug toxicity’. The Coroner found that it took police at the Watchhouse well over an hour to realise that Ms Miller was unresponsive.
Read MoreFood and Drug Administration v American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 592 U.S.__ (2021)
A majority of the Supreme Court of the United States stayed an order by the District Court which suspended the requirement that people attend a hospital or clinic in-person in order to obtain mifepristone, a prescription drug used for medical abortions.
In July 2020, the District Court found that the in-person requirement posed an “undue burden” on people seeking an abortion in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court’s decision reinstates the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement that patients attend a hospital, clinic, or medical office to pick up mifepristone and sign a disclosure form.
Read MoreGerner v Victoria [2020] HCA 48
The 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.
Read MoreGebrehiwot v State of Victoria [2020] VSCA 315
The 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.
Read MoreMinister 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 43
The 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.
Read MoreLoielo v Giles [2020] VSC 722
On 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.
Read MoreDemocratic 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.
Read MoreMake It 16 Incorporated v Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2630
The 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.
Read MoreGerman v State of Victoria [2020] VCC 1517
On 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.
Read MoreBrown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212
On 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.
Read MoreAndrew Borrowdale v Director-General of Health and Attorney-General [2020] NZHC 2090
A 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.
Read MoreBNL20 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 1180
In 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.
Read MoreR (on the application of Edward Bridges) v The Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058
The 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).
Read MoreAttorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246
On 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.
Read MoreRaysor v DeSantis 591 US ____ (2020)
On 16 July 2020, the United States Supreme Court, without opinion, denied an application to vacate the Florida Eleventh Circuit Court’s (Eleventh Circuit) stay of a permanent injunction. The permanent injunction would have prevented Florida from enforcing a law that requires people with a felony conviction to pay all outstanding fines, fees, and restitution payments, in order to be able to vote.
Justice Sotomayor, joined in dissent by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, reproached the “Court’s inaction [as continuing] a trend of condoning disenfranchisement”.
Read MoreBaker v Commissioner of the Australian Border Force [2020] FCA 836
The Federal Court of Australia upheld the decision of the Australian Border Force (ABF) to refuse an application by an ultra-orthodox Jewish couple for an exemption to the current travel ban, in order to attend their son’s wedding in the United States.
The Court found the ABF had correctly determined that the couple did not provide a “compelling reason for needing to leave Australian territory”, as required for an exemption.
Read MoreBinsaris v Northern Territory of Australia [2020] HCA 22
On 3 June 2020, the majority of the High Court found that prison officers’ use of tear gas on four Aboriginal children in Don Dale Youth Detention Centre was unlawful. The High Court unanimously held that each of the four young people were entitled to damages for the harm they suffered.
Read MoreGeller v. De Blasio et al F.Supp.3d (2020)
On 18 May 2020, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Mayor Bill de Blasio's 25 March Executive Order, which restricted non-essential public gatherings to curb the spread of COVID-19, did not violate the Plaintiff's First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Although the decision only considered the severity of the pandemic in New York, it could also be relied on to restrict public protest throughout the duration of the pandemic in the United States. This could be particularly problematic in the context of the Black Lives Matter protest movement, which re-emerged on a global scale in early June.
Read More