Mellet v Ireland (Views adopted by the Committee under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2324/2013)In March 2016, the Human Rights Committee (Committee), which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), determined that Irish laws that forced a woman whose foetus had congenital heart defects (and a low chance of survival) to procure an abortion overseas contravened the ICCPR.  The Committee determined that Articles 7 (privacy), 17 (cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment) and 26 (equality before the law) of the ICCPR were violated and the Irish government should pay compensation to the claimant and provide her with needed psychological treatment.  The Committee also recommended that Ireland amend its laws on voluntary termination, and if necessary its constitution, to ensure compliance with the ICCPR and prevent similar violations occurring.

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26A married celebrity had a threesome. His partner wasn’t one of the three. The affair was published widely on the internet outside the UK. A UK newspaper wanted to publish the story too. Demonstrating that it takes the right to privacy seriously in the age of the internet, the Supreme Court in May 2016 upheld an injunction preventing the publication of the story in the UK.The decision confirms that the right to privacy protects not just secrecy, but intrusion into private life. Therefore the fact that the information was already publicly accessible was not fatal – the injunction would prevent additional intrusion and harm to the applicant and his family caused by print publication.

Case of J.N. v The United Kingdom (Application no. 37289/12) [2016] ECHR 434 (19 May 2016)The United Kingdom remains the only EU Member State which does not impose a statutory time limit on immigration detention prior to deportation.  A challenge to that position was recently heard before the European Court of Human Rights.  While the Court acknowledged that such time limits may be preferable, it concluded that the absence of a fixed time limit does not, in itself, render the UK’s immigration detention system incompatible with Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention).

Plaintiff S99/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483The Commonwealth Government has a duty of care to facilitate a safe and lawful abortion for a refugee who was sexually assaulted while on Nauru awaiting resettlement. The court’s  orders included an injunction to restrain the Minister from procuring an abortion for the applicant in Papua New Guinea (‘PNG’), but did not require the Minister to bring  the applicant to Australia.

Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service v Q [2016] QSC 89On 20 April 2016, the Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service (“CQHHS”) applied to the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking orders authorising the termination of 12-year-old “Q’s” pregnancy.  Exercising the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, McMeekin J held that that the termination of Q’s pregnancy was necessary to avoid danger to Q’s mental and physical health, and was therefore lawful.  

Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12 (6 April 2016)The High Court has unanimously allowed an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, in relation to the criminal offence of intentionally transmitting HIV to another person.The decision provides further guidance as to when evidence of a person’s awareness of risk, and foresight of the consequences of his actions, will suffice to prove criminal intent.   

Da Silva v United Kingdom (no. 5878/08) (30 March 2016)After a young Brazilian man was mistakenly shot and killed by UK police in 2005, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) has found that the manner in which the investigation into the shooting was conducted did not constitute a breach of the procedural duty contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention).  In particular, the Court concluded that the decision not to prosecute any individual officer was not due to any failing in the investigation or any unlawful acts.  Rather, it was due to the fact that the prosecutor had considered all of the facts and concluded that there was insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute.

Goode v Common Equity Housing Limited (Human Rights) [2016] VCAT 93The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter) requires public authorities to give proper consideration to, and act compatibly with, the human rights set out in the Charter. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) recently held that a registered housing association was subject to the Charter when providing social housing.

R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 23) [2016] NSWSC 282 (18 March 2016)The first three people in New South Wales to stand trial for female genital mutilation (FGM) related offences have been convicted and sentenced. Following a nine week trial, and a series of pre-trial applications dealing with evidentiary and procedural questions including the compellability of the child victims to give evidence for the prosecution against their mother (one of the defendants), the defendants were convicted of offences under section 45 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (the Act). Each was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment (with a non-parole period of 11 months) and referred for assessment as to suitability for home detention.

Abbott v Queensland Parole Board [2016] QSC 22 (24 February 2016)The Supreme Court of Queensland has set aside a decision to refuse parole to one of Australia’s most high-profile ‘high security’ prisoners, highlighting that any refusal of parole because of a prisoner’s custodial misconduct must be closely supported by evidence, rather than inferences to that effect. 

R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8; [2016] UKPC 7 (18 February 2016)It is a fundamental principle of criminal law in many jurisdictions that a person who assists or encourages another to commit a crime (an accessory) is guilty of the same offence as the principal offender. The case of Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] AC 168 introduced a new principle widening the application of the law of secondary liability whereby if two people set out to commit an offence (crime A), and in the course of that joint enterprise one of them (D1) commits another offence (crime B), the second person (D2) is nevertheless guilty as an accessory to crime B if he had foreseen the possibility that D1 might act as they did. This principle is commonly referred to as ‘parasitic accessory liability’ or ‘joint enterprise liability’.

Plaintiff M68/2015 [2016] HCA 1 (3 February 2016)In a highly anticipated decision the High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to the Federal Government’s regional processing framework. The majority of the Court held that s198AHA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) authorised the Commonwealth Government’s participation in the plaintiff’s detention. This decision was made after retrospective legislation was introduced after the case was filed with retrospective operation.