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.

Lautsi & Ors v Italy [2011] ECHR Application No 30814/06 (18 March 2011) In this case, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that crucifixes in Italian State schools do not infringe the art 9 right to religious freedom. The case originated in a dispute between a school and a parent and escalated into an international issue with almost all European countries intervening in the final hearing.

The Mayor of London (on behalf of the Greater London Authority) v Brian Haw, Barbara Tucker & Charity Sweet [2011] EWHC 585 (17 March 2011)In The Mayor of London v Haw & Ors, the UK High Court considered whether the granting of particular orders and injunctions would be a disproportionate interference to various protestors' rights under arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Having closely considered the particular facts and circumstances of the various protestors, the Court concluded that the orders and injunctions were not disproportionate.

Hugh Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa & Ors (CCT 48/10) [2011] ZACC 6 (17 March 2011)The Constitutional Court of South Africa declared legislation which disbanded and replaced an anti-corruption body constitutionally invalid. Through a joint judgment by Moseneke DCJ and Cameron J, the majority of the Court gave Parliament 18 months to amend the legislation.

Daniel and Another v The Attorney General and Others (A 430/2009) [2011] NAHC 66 (10 March 2011) The Namibian High Court recently considered whether mandatory minimum sentences for stock theft under the Stock Theft Act violated the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under the Namibian Constitution. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged by two men who were sentenced for a combined 50 years for the theft of one cow and nine goats.

Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4 (10 March 2011)The High Court of Australia has rejected a constitutional challenge to the validity of s 42 of the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic) (repealed). That provision allowed a court to prohibit the publication of information that might enable the identification of persons convicted of sex offences and who were subject to post-custodial supervision orders. The High Court found that contravention of a suppression order under the Act required knowledge that the contravention order existed. This was found to be consistent with the obligation in s 15(3) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter), requiring that restrictions on the right to freedom of expression be 'reasonably necessary' to respect the rights and reputation of other persons.

Withler v Canada (Attorney General) [2011] SCC 12 (4 March 2011)In response to a class action brought on behalf of widows receiving spousal death benefits, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has reviewed Canadian jurisprudence regarding the violation of the right to substantive equality under s 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and revisited the “comparator test” in the context of a challenge to a legislative employee benefits scheme. The decision could be said to represent the final nail in the coffin of the “mirror comparator” test and confirms that contextual, rather than formalistic, analysis is required when considering questions of substantive inequality.

De Simone v Bevnol Constructions & Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] VSCA 54 (3 March 2011)A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has held that it is highly unlikely that the production of documents pursuant to a summons would ordinarily constitute an unlawful or arbitrary interference with a person’s right to privacy pursuant to s 13(a) of the Charter.

P & Q v Surrey County Council [2011] EWCA Civ 190 (28 February 2011)This case in the England and Wales Court of Appeal considered what constitutes a deprivation of liberty and the limitations on the right to liberty. It involves consideration of whether the care arrangements for two persons with mental disability resulted in the deprivation of their liberty.

Johns & Anor, R (on the application of) v Derby City Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 375 (Admin) (28 February 2011)The England and Wales High Court recently found that the right to religious expression could be limited where attitudes towards sexuality might impact upon the rights of the child. The applicants, who were prospective foster carers, were found to have exhibited antipathy or disapproval of same-sex relationships or of people who identified as homosexual.

BB, R (on the application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission & Anor [2011] EWHC 336 (Admin) (25 February 2011)This case considered procedural requirements in the hearing of bail applications made by persons detained on undisclosed national security grounds. The England and Wales High Court concluded that, as a minimum requirement in such applications, government authorities must disclose to the detainees the evidence it used in deciding to deport them. This is so despite the fact that the government can legally detain people pending their deportation on the basis of undisclosed material.

Ahmed & Anor v The Queen [2011] EWCA Crim 184 (25 February 2011)The applicant claimed that his prosecution for terrorism offences would amount to an abuse of process, on the grounds that British authorities were complicit in his torture committed abroad by Pakistani authorities. The UK Court of Appeal refused to extend the law of abuse of process to situations where the defendant’s torture does not impact on the trial. The prosecution will only be an abuse of process if the product of torture (for example, a statement) is being used in court to make a case against the defendant.