Q v Q [2014] EWFC 7 (21 May 2014)The England and Wales Family Court adjourned family law proceedings for contact orders where the unrepresented applicant could not afford a lawyer, due to concerns that the hearing may contravene the applicant’s right to a just and fair hearing

J v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 114/13) [2014] ZACC 13 (6 May 2014)The Constitutional Court of South Africa has ruled that a law requiring courts to make an order to include the particulars of a sexual offence on a National Register for Sex Offenders (the Register) is unconstitutional when that offender is a child.  The court noted that having particulars of a sexual offence on the Register at a young age could significantly impact on the child's life, including their ability to gain employment.  The Court found that the mandatory nature of the law infringes on the right of child offenders to have their best interests considered as a matter of paramount importance and was therefore contrary to section 28(2) of the South African Constitution (the Constitution).

Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB) (2 May 2014)In an important and wide-ranging judgment examining the basis and scope of UK powers to detain in Afghanistan, the UK High Court has ruled that the UK government breached Afghan law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by detaining a suspected insurgent for a prolonged period without charge for the purpose of intelligence gathering. The Court found that the UK has no lawful authority to detain suspects beyond 96-hours before handing them over to the Afghan authorities and, in developing a detention regime that permitted individuals to be held indefinitely and without judicial oversight, it had acted in “stark violation” of its human rights obligations.

Mladina D.D. Ljubljana v Slovenia (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application No 20981/10, 17 April 2014)A Slovenian publisher was successfully sued for defamation for an article criticising a politician for his speech opposing legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. The company claimed that the Slovenian courts’ award of damages against it violated its right to freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the right to freedom of expression, as there was a sufficient factual basis for the statements, and in the context of the debate and article as a whole, the criticism could be seen as strong disagreement with the politician’s views, rather than merely an offensive personal insult.

DPP v J P H (No 2) [2014] VSC 177 (16 April 2014)The Victorian Supreme Court held that the legislative regime empowering courts to make preventative detention orders for certain sexual offenders is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006) Vic.

Christian Youth Camps Limited v Cobaw Community Health Service Limited [2014] VSCA 75 (16 April 2014)The Victorian Court of Appeal has found in favour of a group of young same-sex attracted people in their dispute with a Christian camp provider, in an important test of the religious exemptions under the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic).

National Legal Services Authority v Union of India, Writ Petition No 400 of 2012 with Writ Petition No 604 of 2013, Supreme Court of India (15 April 2014)The Supreme Court of India has ruled that transgender persons have a right to be legally recognised according to their self-identified gender, including a third gender. Failure to provide such legal recognition amounts to a breach of the right to equality before the law, non-discrimination on the basis of sex and the right to life and liberty with dignity. 

NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie [2014] HCA 11 (2 April 2014)The High Court of Australia has held that NSW births, deaths and marriages law recognises that a person’s sex may be other than male or female, and that the NSW Registrar has the power to register someone’s sex as “non-specific”.

R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 380 (1 April 2014)The England and Wales Court of Appeal has found that exposing a prisoner who is a non-smoker to second hand smoke for seven days by forcing him to share a cell with a smoker did not amount to interference with his rights under either article 8 (the right to privacy) or article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Bakopoulos v Greek Orthodox Parish of Mildura (Human Rights) [2014] VCAT 323 (26 March 2014)VCAT dismissed a claim of discrimination for the refusal of a parish to grant financial membership to a female congregant. The Tribunal did not address the content of the alleged discrimination because there was no area in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) that applied to the nature of her claim. The case highlights gaps in the drafting of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) that limit the scope of protection against discrimination.

P v Cheshire West and Chester Council; P and Q (MIG and MEG) v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19 (19 March 2014)The UK Supreme Court handed down a judgment on the two linked appeals known collectively as the Cheshire West Case. The appeals deal with whether and in what circumstances the care and living arrangements made for a person with a mental impairment will amount to a deprivation of liberty. The Supreme Court found that all three of P, MIG and MEG, in these instances, were deprived of their liberty. The Court allowed appeals in both cases, unanimously in P's and by a majority of 4:3 for MIG and MEG.

Iliafi v The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Australia [2014] FCAFC 26 (19 March 2014)The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Queensland undertook a restructure which abolished wards containing predominantly Samoan congregations who conducted services in the Samoan language. The members of those congregations were welcome to attend other congregations, but the services were to be conducted in English and attendees were no longer allowed to use a language other than English in public worship. The Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously held that the Church had not unlawfully discriminated against the Samoan members, contrary to section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA), because their rights to freedom of religious expression (and other human rights) were not infringed.