Taypotat v Taypotat 2013 FCA 192 (13 August 2013)The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal determined that a minimum education requirement under voting legislation breached the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating against the elderly and aboriginal peoples.

Banerji v Bowles [2013] FCCA 1052 (9 August 2013)The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Court) has left open the possibility for a public servant who criticised the government on her anonymous Twitter account to be dismissed from her employment. The Court rejected the public servant's application for an injunction preventing her dismissal from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) and confirmed that there is no unfettered or unlimited right to political expression in Australia.

Bare v Small [2013] VSCA 204 (9 August 2013)The Victorian Court of Appeal granted an application for a Protective Costs Order (PCO) brought by Mr Nassir Bare. Mr Bare had brought an appeal against the orders of Williams J in the Victorian Supreme Court and applied for a PCO to limit his liability to pay costs in the event that the appeal was unsuccessful. The Court granted an order limiting recoverable costs to $5,000, following submissions by Youthlaw that they would be able to raise this amount to support Mr Bare’s appeal.

Her Majesty The Queen v Stephanie Mok, 2014 ONSC 64 (2 August 2013)The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that videotaping a detainee using the toilet in a police cell was a breach of her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. However, this breach of her privacy did not warrant a stay of the criminal proceedings against her.

Nicklinson, R (on the application of) v A Primary Care Trust [2013] EWCA Civ 961 (31 July 2013)The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Court) declined to develop a defence of necessity where someone is accused of assisting suicide or murder in euthanasia cases. The Court also found that euthanasia related offences are not inconsistent with the right to private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). However, the Court built on an earlier decision requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to issue a policy setting out how the DPP will decide whether to prosecute a person for these offences, by finding that the consequences of these acts should be reasonably foreseeable to a person considering whether to assist suicide or euthanise.

Ezokola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 SCC 40 (19 July 2013)The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that to lawfully exclude a person from the definition of refugee because of their membership of a group suspected of war crimes, crimes against humanity or other international crimes, there must be serious reasons for considering that the person has made a “voluntary, knowing, and significant contribution” to the group’s crime or criminal purpose.

Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Another Case (CCT 103/12) [2013] ZACC 25 (10 July 2013)The Constitutional Court of South Africa has ruled that school pregnancy policies that allow the automatic exclusion of pregnant students, violate students' constitutional rights to equality and a basic education and were not in the best interests of the students. The Court ordered that the policies be reviewed.

Sindacutul 'Pastorul Cel Bun' v. Romania [2013] ECHR 64, (9 July 2013)The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that preventing priests from forming a trade union in order to protect the autonomy of the Romanian Orthodox Church (Church) is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the refusal to allow the priests to form a trade union was an interference with their freedom of association, it was considered to be necessary in a democratic society for the preservation of religious autonomy.

Varnas v Luthania, [2013] ECHR, Application no 42615/06 (9 July 2013)The European Court of Human Rights held that Lithuanian laws concerning the rights of persons on remand to receive conjugal visits were discriminatory when compared to the same right of convicted persons serving a custodial sentence. The Court therefore found a violation of article 14 (prohibition on discrimination), in conjunction with article 8 (right to family life), of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Vinter v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR, Applications nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10 (9 July 2013)The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has held that the imposition of an irreducible sentence of life imprisonment breaches article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Vinter and others v United Kingdom (Application nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10) [2016] III ECHR 317 (9 July 2013)In 2013, the European Court of Human Rights held that it is a violation of human dignity to deny life prisoners any prospect of release or review of their sentence.

B v Waitemata District Health Board [2013] NZHC 1702 (8 July 2013)Three applicants challenged a Waitemata District Health Board policy to prohibit smoking in its hospitals and surrounding grounds (Policy). The applicants argued that the Policy was inconsistent with the Board’s controlling legislation and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights).  The New Zealand High Court dismissed the applicants’ claims, finding that the Board was lawfully exercising its powers consistent with its statutory framework. His Honour Justice Asher found no rights were limited by the Policy; however, he concluded that even if there were, these limitations would be justified in accordance with the Bill of Rights.