Forrest v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 125 (2 April 2012)The New Zealand Court of Appeal has awarded $600 in compensation to a prisoner who experienced two unlawful strip searches in the same day.

BAE Systems Australia Limited (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2012] VCAT 349 (28 March 2012) In a recent application for an exemption under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (EO Act), Member Dea of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has considered the interaction between the right to equality under the EO Act and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Clarke v Nationwide News Pty Ltd trading as The Sunday Times [2012] FCA 307 (27 March 2012)Justice Barker in the Federal Court held that Nationwide News, the publisher of The Sunday Times newspaper in Perth, was liable under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) for comments posted by readers underneath articles in the online version of the paper, which amounted to racial vilification.

King & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 376 (27 March 2012) This case concerned three separate appeals challenging the legality of cellular confinement and segregation procedures, imposed on prisoners who were serving custodial sentences.

Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186 (26 March 2012) The Ontario Court of Appeal considered the legality of certain restrictions on prostitution – a lawful activity in Canada. It held that provisions which prevent prostitutes from taking measures to secure their safety, and substantially increase their risk of harm, contravene the right to liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186 (26 March 2012) The Ontario Court of Appeal considered the legality of certain restrictions on prostitution – a lawful activity in Canada. It held that provisions which prevent prostitutes from taking measures to secure their safety, and substantially increase their risk of harm, contravene the right to liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Minister of Correctional Services v Lee (316/11) [2012] ZASCA 23 (23 March 2012)In this case the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa ruled that while prison authorities failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the contraction of tuberculosis in custody, causation was not made out and therefore the State was not liable.

R v Dennis Michael Nona [2012] ACTSC 41 (23 March 2012)In R v Nona the ACT Supreme Court considered the right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay in the context of whether or not to stay criminal proceedings. The key issues related to a breach of a statutory human right and the appropriate remedy for that breach. While the court found that the right to a trial without unreasonable delay had been breached, it considered that a declaration would be an appropriate remedy rather than a permanent stay. This decision is important because it discusses the relevance of section 30 (interpretation of laws and human rights) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) when interpreting ACT legislation, and the common law and statutory principles of undue delay.

Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 (22 March 2012)The Supreme Court of Canada has delivered a key decision clarifying the standard of review to be applied in considering whether administrative decision-makers have exercised their discretion compatibly with the Canadian Charter. The Court held that, rather than using the test in R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103, which is used to determine whether legislation is Charter compatible, a more flexible reasonableness test should be used, drawing on administrative law concepts and providing greater deference to administrative decision-makers.

Slaveski v The Queen (on the application of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria) [2012] VSCA 48 (20 March 2012)The applicant, Mr Slaveski, appealed against conviction and sentence for contempt of court.The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission intervened in the proceeding regarding the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) to the Supreme Court. The Commission’s submissions concerned, among other things, whether the trial judge erred in not granting an adjournment to Mr Slaveski in circumstances where his lawyers had withdrawn and he alleged that evidence relevant to his trial had been tampered with.

Wright v Argentina [2012] EWHC 669 (Admin) (20 March 2012) The appellant (Wright) appealed her extradition to Argentina under the Extradition Act 2003 (UK) to the High Court of Justice. The appellant contended that her extradition to face drug charges would contravene her rights under articles 3 (inhumane and degrading treatment), 5 (trial within reasonable time) and 8 (respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.Justice Silber held that the extradition would contravene the appellant’s rights under article 3 of the Convention, however he confined his decision to the facts. The facts were unique in that: (a) no undertakings were given by the Government of Argentina with respect to the appellant’s treatment in Argentina; and (b) the respondent did not cross-examine the respondent’s expert evidence on article 3.

Lord Carlile and Others and Maryam Rajavi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 617 (Admin) (16 March 2012) SummaryIn this decision, the High Court of England and Wales considered whether concerns relating to national security justified infringement of the right to freedom of expression. The British Secretary of State for the Home Department refused permission for Iranian dissident Maryam Rajavi to enter the UK to address British parliamentarians at Westminster, allegedly infringing the claimants’ common law and European Convention of Human Rights right to freedom of expression. Although it expressed sympathy with the claimants’ position, the High Court held that the Secretary’s decision to exclude Rajavi was proportionate in light of the Secretary’s concerns for national security and public order.