Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution Intervening) (83145/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 53 (22 February 2017) The High Court of South Africa has found that the decision by the national executive to sign and deliver a notice of withdrawal from the Rome Statute without prior parliamentary approval was unconstitutional and invalid.

State of Washington & State of Minnesota v Trump No. 2:17-cv-00141 (W.D.Wash. 2017) (9 February 2017)In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the United States Court of Appeal maintained the freeze on US President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration order suspending entry of people from 7 countries for 90 days, indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees and suspending the United States Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days.

Obudho v Patty Malones Bar Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 28 (9 February 2017)The Victorian Supreme Court has found that the cancellation by Patty Malones Bar of an African music themed event on the basis of the race of prospective patrons constituted direct discrimination in breach of the Equal Opportunity Act. The Court awarded compensation to Antony Obudho for his economic and non-economic losses as the organiser of the event, despite the fact that Patty Malones had not had any direct dealings with Mr Obudho and did not have any information about his race or ethnicity.

DB v Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland [2017] UKSC 7 (1 February 2017)The United Kingdom Supreme Court found that the Northern Ireland police service wrongly determined that they did not have the power to prevent disruptive and violent protests through a residential area. The Court held that freedom of assembly in article 11 of the ECHR is not absolute and police have a duty to protect others from any violence.

Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 25358/12, 24 January 2017).The European Court of Human Rights has found that the forced removal of an infant from his surrogate parents constituted an interference with the surrogate parents' right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, but that the actions taken by the Italian government were justified under the margin of appreciation under domestic laws prohibiting commercial surrogacy.

R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 (24 January 2017)The UK High Court has ruled that ministers of the United Kingdom cannot employ prerogative powers to withdraw from the EU without an Act of Parliament authorising them to do so, as only an Act of Parliament can significantly alter the UK's constitutional arrangements. As EU law was a significant source of UK domestic law, the majority ruled that this legal source could not be removed by ministerial decision alone.

Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom (application no. 57592/08) [2016] ECHR 021 (January 2017)Four years after its decision in Vinter, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has revisited the UK’s life-sentencing regime, reversing its earlier position and holding that the regime does not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.

J v B [2017] EWFC 4 (20 January 2017)In a complex case, the Family Court in England has ordered that a transgender mother is not permitted to have direct contact with her five practising, ultra-orthodox Jewish children, on the basis that the benefits to the children of resuming contact would be outweighed by the harmful community reaction to the children and their family. However, the Court ordered that indirect contact four times a year be allowed.

Rahmatullah (No 2) v Ministry of Defence [2017] UKSC 1 (17 January 2017)The UK Supreme Court has unanimously held that the “Crown act of state” doctrine acts as a bar to certain claims against the Crown in the field of international affairs. In this case, the detention of a Pakistani national by British forces and their transfer to US custody (under which he was detained for 10 years) were “Crown acts of state” for which the UK Government can not be liable under the UK's tort laws.

Minister for Families and Children v Certain Children by their Litigation Guardian Sister Marie Brigid Arthur [2016] VSCA 343 (29 December 2016)The Victorian Court of Appeal upheld a Supreme Court decision that the Victorian Government's decision to establish a youth justice centre inside the Barwon maximum security adult prison was unlawful. The Court held that the Minister and Governor in Council failed to have regard to children’s rights and Victoria’s legal obligations but overturned a finding that the Minister had acted for an improper purpose in establishing the facility.

Certain Children by their Litigation Guardian Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for Families and Children [2016] VSC 796 (21 December 2016)The Supreme Court of Victoria has found that orders made in November 2016 establishing the Grevillea unit at Barwon Prison as a youth justice facility were invalid and of no effect because of a failure by the defendants to take into account certain relevant entitlements and duties under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). Garde J held that the use of the facility as ‘emergency accommodation’ was an improper or extraneous purpose to that required for the exercise of relevant powers under the CYF Act.Garde J also held that the defendants failed to give proper consideration to provisions of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

Tele2 Sverige AB v Post-och telestyrelsen; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson and others (C-203/15 and C-698/15), EU:C:2016:970The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that EU law precludes national laws that allow for the indiscriminate retention of all electronic communications data of all subscribers and users. It also found that national laws must put parameters around the circumstances in which authorities can access the retained data, and in particular access should be:restricted solely to access for the purpose of fighting serious crime;subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority; andsubject to a requirement that the data so accessed should be retained within the European Union.