Valerie Morse v The Police [2010] NZSC 45 (6 May 2011)The Supreme Court of New Zealand has found that the right to freedom of expression contained in s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ) requires an objective approach to the determination of charges of offensive or disorderly behaviour for the purposes of s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (NZ). The provision is directed at behaviour which, when objectively assessed, disrupts order in, or within view of, a public space. Whether those present are offended as a matter of fact, is only one consideration to be taken into account.

DPP v KW [2011] VCC (2 May 2011)The County Court recently handed down a decision in relation to the use by Victoria Police of ‘pretext conversations’ to gather evidence. The matter involved an application by KW to have evidence of a recording of a phone conversation between himself and the complainant excluded in his trial. This recording had been made at a police station using police equipment, although that equipment was operated by the complainant. No warrant had been obtained for the use of this equipment on the basis of Victoria Police’s view that the ‘participant surveillance’ exemption under the Surveillance Devices Act applied to this method of evidence gathering.

Thales Australia Limited and ADI Munitions Pty Ltd (Anti-Discrimination) [2011] VCAT 729 (29 April 2011)In this decision the Tribunal granted an exemption from certain provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic) (EO Act) to companies carrying out contracts with American firms in the defence industry. The Tribunal held that although granting an exemption may limit the rights to equality and privacy under ss 8 and 13 of the Charter, it was justified under s 7(2).

LMR v Argentina, UN Doc CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007 (28 April 2011)In May 2007, VDA, an Argentine national, submitted a communication to the UN Human Rights Committee on behalf of her daughter, LMR, who has a permanent mental impairment. The communication claimed violations by Argentina of a number of articles under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to freedom from torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to privacy, arising out of a denial of access to legal abortion.

Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Operation Smile (Australia) & Ors (No 2) [2011] VSC 153 (19 April 2011) The case involved an application brought by the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria against the Hope Clinic. The application sought to prevent the continuation of representations made by the Hope Clinic as to the benefits of its therapies for sufferers of, amongst other illnesses, cancer. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the representations contravened section 9 of the Fair Trading Act.

 Moos & Anor, R (on the application of) v Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 957 (Admin) (14 April 2011) The England and Wales High Court recently concluded that action taken by the police to contain and then later disperse G20 protestors constituted an unlawful use of force, in the circumstances.

Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School & Others v Essay N.O. and Others (CCT 29/10) [2011] ZACC 13 (11 April 2011)In this significant decision, the Constitutional Court of South Africa considered the nature and scope of the rights to education and children’s rights when considering the rights of a private property owner to evict a school which was operating on its premises.

Condliff, R (On the Application Of) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC B8 (Admin) (7 April 2011)The High Court of England and Wales has held that a public health authority did not breach a patient’s right to a private and family life by excluding consideration of non-clinical social factors in deciding not to fund surgery for that patient.

Rahman, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 944 (Admin) (31 March 2011) The High Court of England and Wales has held that the decision of a local council to terminate funding to a number of community advice centres was defective, because the council failed to give due regard to its equality duties.v

S v S (CCT 63/10) [2011] ZACC 7 (29 March 2011) This case considered the degree to which a court is required to take into consideration the best interests of the child when determining the appropriate sentence to impose upon a primary caregiver. In particular, it considered the circumstances when a person will be considered to be the primary caregiver of a child, and the impact the person’s imprisonment will have on the child.

Faulkner, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice the Parole Board [2011] EWCA Civ 349 (29 March 2011) The Court of Appeal of England and Wales decided Mr Daniel Faulkner was entitled to damages pursuant to section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) (HRA) in the sum of £10,000 as a result of being unlawfully detained in breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’).

Giuliani and Gaggio v Italy [2011] ECHR 513 (24 March 2011)The Grand Chamber of the European Court found no violation of the European Convention of Human Rights arose out of the killing of a demonstrator by Italian armed forces during the G8 summitNotably, however, there were divergent views regarding the State's obligations (both substantive and procedural) to protect life, including in relation to making specific provisions governing the use of firearms during police operations, issuing non-lethal weapons, and whether there is a higher level of responsibility where large-scale, high risk demonstrations are planned.