Bayev and Others v. Russia (application nos. 67667/09, 44092/12 and 56717/12) [2017] ECHR On 20 June 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia's so-called "gay propaganda" laws breached Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The challenge was brought by three Russian nationals who are gay rights activists and were fined for allegedly promoting homosexuality while demonstrating in public places.

Kofoworola Adeolu David v Zara Hosany [2017] EWHC 2787 (QB)In a high-profile decision of the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), Judge Moloney QC dismissed a libel action brought by Mr David, a Governor of a UK public authority, against another Governor, Ms Hosany. The allegedly defamatory material included allegations of sexual harassment. The Court upheld the principle that complaints, properly made and without malice, are protected from defamation actions (the common law defence of qualified privilege). The exception to the privilege borne from article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and section 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, being a person’s right to respect for “private and family life, home and correspondence”, did not apply as the complaints were made in a private capacity. The judgment provides necessary encouragement to people to report incidences of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Re Roberts [2017] HCA 39 (22 September 2017), Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon [2017] HCA 45 (27 October 2017) and Re Barrow [2017] HCA 47 (7 November 2017)In three related decisions, the Australian High Court has for the first time ruled on several key aspects of section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution, relating to foreign citizenship for elected members of Parliament. The Court held that four Senators (Ludlam, Waters, Roberts and Nash), and one member of the House of Representatives (Joyce), were incapable of being elected to the Parliament because they were citizens of a foreign power.  The Court also held that two other Senators whose election had been referred to the Court (Canavan and Xenophon) were validly elected and capable of sitting in the Parliament.It is expected that the election of a number of further members of Parliament may be referred to the Court shortly for consideration.

Einarsson v. Iceland (Application no. 24703/15) [2017] ECHR 7 November 2017The European Court of Human Rights has overturned a decision of the Iceland Supreme Court and upheld a well-known commentator’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, over an individual’s right to exercise freedom of expression under Article 10 in the context of an Instagram post accusing him of rape.

YG v S (A263/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 290; 2018 (1) SACR 64 (GJ) (19 October 2017)The South African High Court has ruled the common law defence of reasonable or moderate chastisement is no longer applicable at common law in South Africa. The landmark judgement found no justification for permitting the use of corporal punishment against a child which would otherwise constitute assault but for the invocation of the defence.

Brown v Tasmania [2017] HCA 43The High Court of Australia has held that key provisions of a Tasmanian law restricting protest are invalid because they violate the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.

Tamiz v the United Kingdom (Application no. 3877/14) [2017] ECHR (12 October 2017)The European Court of Human Rights has reinforced the importance of the freedom of expression in the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of online forums. The Court found that the English courts had conducted “an appropriate balancing exercise” when determining that ‘vulgar’ comments posted on a blog operated by Google Inc. did not pose enough of a risk to the applicant’s reputation (Article 8) to warrant restricting the freedom of expression of Google Inc. and its users (Article 10).

Bundesverfassungsgericht [German Constitutional Court], 1 BvR 2019/16, 10 October 2017The German Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that the existing law dictating binary gender options in the birth registry is unconstitutional. The Court found that sections of the Civil Status Act that forced people to nominate as either "male", "female" or without a gender were a violation of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, specifically the general right to personality and the protection against discrimination based on sex. 

R (on the application of Noel Conway) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 2447 (Admin) (5 October 2017)The UK High Court has rejected the latest legal challenge to the prohibition on assisted dying, holding that the prohibition represents a necessary and proportionate interference with the applicant’s right to private life. The Court placed reliance upon the fact that Parliament had repeatedly decided to leave the prohibition in place, providing a timely reminder of the crucial role of Parliament in promoting a person’s right to die with dignity in the context of the assisted dying laws currently being debated in Victorian Parliament.

Wilkie & Ors v The Commonwealth & Ors; Australian Marriage Equality Ltd & Anor v Minister for Finance & Anor [2017] HCA 40 (M105/M106 of 2017)In M105/M106, the High Court dismissed two legal challenges to the Government's plan to carry out a voluntary postal survey on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. The plaintiffs challenged the survey on the basis that it was not lawfully funded.

Regner v the Czech Republic [2017] ECHR (Application no. 35289/11) (19 September 2017)The majority of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that non-disclosure of information revoking a security clearance did not deny the applicant the right to a fair trial.

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34The High Court has held that in order for an applicant to be covered by the Migration Act’s complementary protection regime, the element of “intention” requires a person’s actual, subjective intention to bring about pain, suffering or extreme humiliation.