M S v Philippines, Communication No. 30/2011, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/58/D/30/2011A sexual harassment case was recently declared inadmissible by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The complaint concerned the use of gender stereotypes by the domestic courts in the author’s case, amounting to a breach of Articles 5 and 11 of CEDAW. Despite clear examples of gender stereotypes being considered by the domestic courts, the majority of the Committee held there was no evidence that those stereotypes had negatively impacted the domestic court's decision. The dissenting Committee Member found a breach of CEDAW had been substantiated but that the claim was inadmissible as the author had delayed in bringing the case to the Committee.

González Carreño v Spain, Comm. No. 47/2012, UN Doc. CONVENTION/C/58/D/47/2012 (2014)The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women affirmed that, in matters of child custody and visitation, the best interests of the child must be a central concern and that national authorities must take into account the existence of a context of domestic violence when making decisions.  The failure of State parties to exercise due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence by a marital party will amount to a breach of the Convention.  It is not sufficient for a State party to rely upon notions of formal equality in making decisions as to parental custody.

Mugenzi v France (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 52701/09, 10 July 2014)Tanda-Muzinga v France (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 2260/10, 10 July 2014)Senigo Longue and Others v France (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 19113/09, 10 July 2014)In each case, the French authorities refused to issue visas for the applicants’ children. The authorities alleged that there were difficulties in establishing the children’s civil registration status as the birth certificates provided in support of the visa applications were not authentic. The applicants appealed, claiming that the difficulties they encountered in the Family Reunification Procedure constituted a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Detention Action v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2245 (Admin) (9 July 2014)The UK High Court has found that the Detainee Fast Track system for detaining asylum seekers is unlawful because the system carried “an unacceptable risk of unfairness” primarily due to the unjustifiable delay in allocating lawyers to asylum seekers.

M.P.E.V v Switzerland (European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, Application No 3910/13, 8 July 2014)The European Court of Human Rights found that Switzerland’s intended expulsion of an Ecuadorian man who had unsuccessfully claimed asylum would violate his, his second daughter’s and his wife’s right to a family under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, despite the man’s previous criminal convictions and his separation from his wife.

The Queen on the application of David Tracey (personally and on behalf of the estate of Janet Tracey (Deceased)) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 82 (17 June 2014)This case concerns a patient's right to be consulted by clinicians prior to the imposition of a Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notice on her file. The Court of Appeal accepted that this decision engages the rights contained in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). In these circumstances, article 8 creates a presumption that patients will be consulted before a DNACPR decision, unless there is a convincing reason to justify exclusion. The Court made a declaration that in failing to consult the Appellant prior to imposing a DNACPR notice, without an appropriate justification, the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) breached article 8 of the Convention.

S.A.S v France (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 43835/11, 1 July 2014)On 1 July 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held that a French law prohibiting the concealment of one's face in public places does not breach the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Whilst it was held that the prohibition impinges on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to respect for private and family life, the government was entitled to impose the prohibition on the grounds that the ban protects the rights and freedoms of others.

McCullen v Coakley, 573 US ___ (2014) (26 June 2014)The United States Supreme Court has overturned a Massachusetts law creating a 35 foot buffer zone outside reproductive health facilities.  The Supreme Court held that the law violates the first amendment of the US Constitution because, while the buffer zone serves the State’s legitimate interests in maintaining public safety and preserving access to healthcare, it ‘burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary’.

Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v All Means All [2014] NZHC 1433 (25 June 2014)This case concerns the rights a duties of the Canterbury District Health Board (DHB) and the Departments of Corrections (Corrections) concerning the level of medical treatment they must provide a serving prisoner on a hunger strike.

Plaintiff S297-2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 24 (20 June 2014)Plaintiff M150 of 2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 25 (20 June 2014)In two judgments handed down on 20 June 2014, the High Court held that section 85 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not empower the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to make a determination limiting the number of protection visas that may be granted during a financial year. Accordingly, the Minister's determination of 4 March 2014 limiting the maximum number of protection visas for the financial year ending on 30 June 2014 to 2,733 was invalid.

R (on the application of T and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2014] UKSC 35 (18 June 2014)The UK Supreme Court considered the right to privacy in the context of laws requiring the issuance of criminal record certificates that contain references to minor past offences. The Court held that laws requiring the disclosure of data relating to cautions and warnings given for minor offences constituted an interference with the right to respect for private life enshrined in article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention).

Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 22 (18 June 2014)The High Court has unanimously rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of the sections of the Migration Act which give the Immigration Minister the power to designate regional processing countries. The High Court also rejected a challenge to the Minister’s exercise of this power with respect to the decision to designate PNG as a regional processing centre.