Filter
keyboard_arrow_upEuropean Court of Human Rights finds hate speech not protected by freedom of expression
Belkacem v Belgium (2017) ECHR 253The European Court of Human Rights has found that a conviction for the incitement of hatred, violence and discrimination for under Belgian law did not breach a far right Muslim activist's right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Read moreUK High Court finds that arms trade to Saudi Arabia can continue
R (on the application of Campaign Against Arms Trade) v The Secretary of State for International Trade and Intervenors [2017] EWHC 1726 (QB)The English & Wales High Court has found that the UK's Secretary of State decision not to suspend a licence to export arms to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was valid. The Campaign Against Arms Trade and a number of intervenors unsuccessfully argued that the export licence should be suspended on the basis that there was a clear risk that the arms could be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.
Read moreVictorian Court of Appeal clarifies law and frees elderly man with an intellectual impairment from indefinite prison order
Richards (a Pseudonym) v The Queen (No 2) [2017] VSCA 174The Victorian Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against an indefinite custodial supervision order for an elderly man with mental and physical health issues and an intellectual impairment who was unfit to be tried for historical offences.
Read moreUS Supreme Court temporarily reinstates President Trump’s travel ban for immigrants with no bona fide connection to the United States
Trump v International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S.Ct 2080 (26 June 2017)On 26 June 2017 the Supreme Court of the United States temporarily reinstated President Trump's travel ban, but a majority of the Court held that the temporary reinstatement will not apply to people who can show they have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or organisation already in the United States.
Read moreUK Supreme Court challenges ‘deport now, appeal later’ immigration policy
R (on the application of Kiarie) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent); R (on the application of Byndloss) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 42The UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that deportation certificates issued by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department were unlawful. The recipients of the deportation orders in this case were entitled to appeal against the Home Secretary’s immigration decisions by a judicial review procedure to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). However, the effect of the deportation orders was that the appeals could only be brought after the appellants’ removal from the UK. This is known as the ‘deport first, appeal later’ policy. The Court found that difficulties with evidence and legal representation meant these appeals were not sufficiently effective.
Read moreUK Supreme Court finds that refusing free abortion services to women travelling from Northern Ireland to England is lawful
R (on the application of A and B) v Secretary of State for Health [2017] UKSC 41A slim majority of the UK Supreme Court has upheld the UK Secretary of State for Health’s decision not to provide free of charge abortion services to women travelling from Northern Ireland to England. The court found that the Secretary was entitled to consider the Northern Ireland Assembly’s decision not to provide abortions and the devolved government model for providing health services. Further, that treating UK citizens who usually reside in Northern Ireland differently was justified in the circumstances.
Read moreUS Supreme Court confirms equal gender protection in immigration law but plaintiff deported as less favourable test followed
Sessions v Morales-Santana, 582 U.S Supreme Court (12 June 2017)The US Supreme Court has held that different citizenship rules for children of unmarried mothers and fathers unlawfully infringes the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal gender protection. However, the Court determined that the less favourable test should be followed, resulting in the respondent's deportation from the United States.
Read moreVictorian Supreme Court finds establishment of youth justice centre at Barwon adult prison contrary to human rights and unlawful
Certain Children by their litigation guardian Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for Families and Children & Ors [2017] VSC 251 (11 May 2017)The Victorian Supreme Court has found for the third time that the Victorian government acted unlawfully with children's human rights and best interests in breach of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 by establishing the Grevillea unit at Barwon prison as a youth justice centre and remand centre, transferring children to the Grevillea unit and using OC spray and extendable batons on children.
Read moreCanadian Federal Court says citizenship revocation offends Bill of Rights
Abdulla Ahmad Hassouna et al v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [2017] FC 473 (10 May 2017)The Canadian Federal Court has ruled that the current procedure for revoking citizenship is unconstitutional as it deprives people of a fair hearing – a right protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Read moreHigh Court of Australia finds that reckless infliction of STI can constitute malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm
Aubrey v The Queen [2017] HCA 18 (10 May 2017)A majority of the High Court has held that the act of infecting another individual with a sexually transmitted infection falls within the meaning of 'maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm' under s 35(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The decision also clarifies that it is sufficient that the Crown establish that an accused foresaw the possibility, and not the probability, that an act of sexual intercourse could result in the contraction of a grievous bodily disease for an accused to be convicted of the offence.
Read moreEuropean Court of Justice clarifies scope of workplace bans on religious headscarves
Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV (European Court of Justice, C-157/15, 14 March 2017) and Bougnaoui v Micropole SA (European Court of Justice, C-188/15, 14 March 2017)The European Court of Justice has clarified European law surrounding workplace prohibitions on wearing religious symbols in customer facing roles. The Court held that workplace bans on religious dress based on legitimate and objective aims can lawfully prohibit employees wearing visible signs of their religious, political or philosophical beliefs. However, workplace policies based on subjective criteria or which disadvantage people with particular religious beliefs would constitute indirect discrimination.
Read moreVictorian Supreme Court rules that courts have fair hearing and equality obligations to assist self-represented litigants
Matsoukatidou v Yarra Ranges Council [2017] VSC 61 (28 February 2017)The Supreme Court of Victoria has delivered an important decision on the obligations of courts to ensure fair hearing and equality rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (Charter) in the context of unrepresented litigants, and in particular where a litigant has a cognitive disability.
Read more