Plaintiff S297-2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 3 (11 February 2015)The High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Communication No. 39/2012, 57th sess, UN Doc CEDAW/C/57/D/39/2012 (10-28 February 2014) ('N v the Netherlands')The High Court of Australia has unanimously held that the Minister cannot refuse to grant a protection visa to an individual who has validly applied for a visa on the sole basis that the individual is an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. In this case, as the Minister had refused to grant a protection visa to the plaintiff on this basis, and therefore failed to consider the plaintiff's visa application according to law as he had been directed to do by the Court, the Court issued a writ of peremptory mandamus requiring the Minister to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.

Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015]The Canadian Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the prohibition on assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia contained in the Canadian Criminal Code. The Court found that the Code provisions infringe on the rights to life, liberty and security of the person, rights which are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 2The United Kingdom Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the long-standing rule that the police owe no duty of care in negligence in the context of protecting victims from potential future crimes.

CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1 (28 January 2015)By a narrow majority (4:3) the High Court found that the Australian Government’s detention of 157 asylum seekers for nearly a month on board a customs vessel was legal under Australian domestic law.

Boulton v The Queen; Clements v The Queen; Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342 (22 December 2014)In Victoria’s first guideline judgment the Court of Appeal stated that the availability of community correction orders (CCOs) dramatically changes the sentencing landscape. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that CCOs enable punitive and rehabilitative sentencing purposes to be served simultaneously, positing CCOs as punitive non-custodial sentences.

DPP v Kaba [2014] VSC 52 (18 December 2014)The Supreme Court of Victoria found that while the police did have the power to conduct a random stop and license check of Mr Kaba, the officers’ subsequent coercive questioning of him disproportionately limited his rights to privacy and freedom of movement under the Victorian Charter and was therefore unlawful.

Stewart & Ors v Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council & Ors [2014] ACTSC 334 (18 December 2014)The Supreme Court of the ACT has found that the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council (WBACC) did not meet the definition of a public authority pursuant to s 40 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) and therefore it did not need to take into account human rights considerations in its decision to evict the plaintiffs.

Greater Glascow Health Board v Doogan [2014] UKSC 68The Supreme Court held that right to conscientious objection in the Abortion Act 1967 (UK) does not extend to delegating to, supervising or supporting staff who are taking part in the termination of a pregnancy.  In making its decision, the Supreme Court took a strict statutory interpretation approach, holding that broader policy arguments and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights were extraneous to that enquiry. 

X X v W W and Middle South Area Mental Health Service [2014] VSC 564 (17 December 2014)The Supreme Court confirmed that when the Mental Health Review Board discharges a patient from involuntary treatment, there must be a change in circumstances before a doctor can make a new involuntary treatment order.

Burgess & Anor v Director of Housing & Anor [2014] VSC 648 (17 December 2014)Macaulay J held that in making the decision to apply for a warrant of possession:The Director of Housing was obliged by law to consider the facts surrounding Ms Burgess’s health and the significance of maintaining the rented premises to her health and wellbeing.  The Director’s failure to do this constituted a jurisdictional error.  The Director was obliged by law to consider the human rights of Ms Burgess and her son identified in s 17 of the Charter.  Failure to take these rights into account made the Director’s decision unlawful under s 38 of the Charter [243]-[244].His Honour made a declaration that the decision to apply for the warrant was and is of no legal force or effect, and was unlawful by reason of s 39(1) of the Charter [248]. He invited further submissions as to any further orders that should follow from his findings. 

A, B, C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justice (European Court of Justice, C‑148/13 C‑149/13, C‑150/13, 2 December 2014)The European Court of Justice examined Dutch authorities’ assessment of the credibility of men seeking asylum on the basis of feared persecution because of their declared homosexuality. The Court found that assessment of the credibility of a person’s claim to be homosexual should be sensitive to individual circumstances, not based on stereotypes, and consistent with fundamental human rights.