Esther Kiobel, Individually and on behalf of her late husband Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al, Petitioners. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al., 569 US (2013) (17 April 2013) The United States Supreme Court has found that the Alien Tort Statute, used for decades by survivors of human rights abuses to seek redress, has no application to violations committed in other countries unless there is a strong connection with the US. The Court expanded the presumption against extraterritorial application to limit the scope of the Statute. The Justices of the Court agreed that mere presence of a corporation in the US would not of itself demonstrate a strong enough link to bring alleged extraterritorial human rights violations within the Statute’s ambit. However, the Court declined to address the broader question of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute.

Aswat v The United Kingdom, ECHR 2013 (Application no. 17299/12) (16 April 2013) The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously held that the extradition of the applicant from the UK to the US would violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the severity of the applicant's mental illness.

Bare v Small [2013] VSC 129 (Unreported, 25 March 2013) The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed an application seeking judicial review of two decisions by the Office of Police Integrity not to investigate a complaint of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by an officer of Victoria Police.

Core Issues Trust v Transport for London [2013] EWHC 651 (Admin) (22 March 2013)The English High Court of Justice held that Transport for London's decision to prevent the Core Issues Trust from advertising a confrontational message against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender individuals on London's bus network did not contravene Transport for London's duty to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Catt v ACPO and Ors; T v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 192 (14 March 2013)The English Court of Appeal upheld two appeals from the Divisional Court regarding the right to respect to private life under article 8(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and the retention of information by the police. The Court found that, even in cases where the collection of information did not breach the right to privacy or the information was publicly available, systematic collation and retention of such information may amount to an unjustifiable infringement of the right to privacy.

Salakhov and Islyamova v Ukraine [2013] ECHR, Application No. 28005/08The European Court of Human Rights has reaffirmed the principle of international human rights law that prisoners should not be subjected to hardship or constraint other than that which necessarily results from their deprivation of liberty. Prisoners must be treated with humanity and dignity, and their detention should not prevent them from accessing health care in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community.

Eon v France, ECHR 2013 (Application No. 26118/10)The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a French activist’s appeal against a fine for offending the French President when he held a placard with the French equivalent of “get lost, you prick” while the President was at a public event.

Victoria Police Toll Enforcement v Taha; State of Victoria v Brookes [2013] VSCA 37The Court of Appeal held that there is a duty on Magistrates to inquire into whether infringement offenders have disabilities such as mental illness or intellectual disability, or other special circumstances, before making an imprisonment order in respect of unpaid fines. This duty is a consequence of a proper construction of the relevant statutory provision, section 160 of the Infringements Act 2006 Vic. This construction is supported by section 32 of the Charter, as it is more compatible with the rights to equality, liberty and a fair hearing.

Monis v The Queen;  Droudis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4 (27 February 2013)The High Court of Australia has split 3:3 on whether a provision of the Criminal Code (Cth) making it an offence for a person to use a postal or similar service in an offensive way is invalid as an impermissible burden on the freedom of communication about government or political matters implied in the Australian Constitution (“implied freedom”). French CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ separately answered the question in the affirmative, while Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ jointly answered in the negative. Pursuant to section 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which deals with equally divided opinions of the Court, the decision appealed from — that of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal that the provision is valid — was affirmed.

Attorney-General for South Australia v Corporation of the City of Adelaide and Ors [2013] HCA 3This High Court decision concerns the scope of the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution. Specifically, it considered the second part of the test from Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 189 CLR 520 – whether a by-law was reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with the maintenance of representative democracy as the constitutionally prescribed system of government.

J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9The United Kingdom Supreme Court has considered the appropriate balance to be struck between the right of the child to live in a safe and nurturing environment and the right to family life in circumstances where those two rights are said to be in conflict. Although these rights are most often complementary, there are unfortunate cases where a child is at risk of being harmed by a family member and protecting the child (and upholding their human rights) can necessitate an intrusion by the State into a family’s private life. In this judgment, the Court made a weighted legal analysis of when and how such an intrusion can be justified.

X v Austria [2013] ECHR 057The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has found that where second-parent adoption is available for unmarried different-sex couples, the impossibility of second-parent adoption by same sex couples is discriminatory and violates articles 8 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.