R v Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 (19 February 2010)The Canadian Supreme Court has held that the excessive use of force by police officers in conducting an arrest was a breach of the accused’s right to security of the person and warranted a reduction of his sentence.

Mohamed v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65 (10 Feb 2010)On 10 February 2010, the Court of Appeal (the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench presiding) published its decision in the protracted and highly publicised litigation involving Binyam Mohamed.  The decision addresses a number of important legal issues that derive from the working relationship between the intelligence services of the UK and the USA, including the appropriate balance between non-disclosure and public-interest immunity, and principles of open justice.  As the Chief Justice astutely concluded (at [57]), the decision also engages ‘concepts of democratic accountability and, ultimately, the rule of law itself’.

Canada (Prime Minister) v Khadr, 2010 SCC 3 (29 January 2010)The Canadian Supreme Court has confirmed that Canadian officials breached Omar Khadr's right to liberty and security of the person under s 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  However, the Supreme Court held that it does not have the power to order that the Canadian Government seek Mr Khadr's repatriation from Guantanamo Bay, because such a request falls within the Canadian Government's prerogative power in foreign affairs.

Guardian News and Media Ltd & Ors, Re HM Treasury v Ahmed & Ors [2010] UKSC 1 (27 January 2010)The press challenged orders protecting the identity of the appellants from publication based on the right to freedom of expression.  The appellants claimed that would breach their right to respect for private and family life.

G, R (on the application of) v X School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1 (20 January 2010)The English Court of Appeal has held that proceedings that are not by themselves determinative of civil rights or obligations may still be subject to the requirements of art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights where the outcome of the proceedings will have a substantial influence or effect on the determination of those rights or obligations.

Orobator v HMP Holloway & Anor [2010] EWHC 58 (Admin) (20 January 2010)In this case, the England and Wales High Court rejected a British citizen’s challenge to her detention in the UK after being convicted of drug offences in Laos.  While the Court accepted that the claimant had been treated unfairly, it was not satisfied her trial and conviction in Laos amounted to a ‘flagrant denial of justice’ such as to justify her release from prison.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF [2010] EWHC 42 (Admin) (18 January 2010)The England and Wales High Court recently held that non-derogating control orders imposed on two UK citizens under anti-terrorism legislation were void ab initio.  This resulted in a more favourable damages outcome for the complainants in their litigation against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had imposed the orders.

PHS Community Services Society v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 BCCA 15 (15 January 2010)The British Columbia Court of Appeal has held that the denial of access to health care services, including safe injecting facilities, for people with severe drug dependency may violate the rights to life, liberty and security of person

A W Khan v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 27(12 January 2010)The European Court of Human Rights has held that the deportation of a convicted heroin trafficker, who had not re-offended since release from prison and had developed strong ties with a country based on long-term residency, family and children, constituted a violation of the applicant’s right to private and family life.

Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom [2009] ECHR 28 (12 January 2010)The European Court of Human Rights held that stop and search powers granted to police under the ss 44-47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (UK) were neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse.  As such, the Court found the powers not to be ‘in accordance with the law’, in violation of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Trang v Alberta (Edmonton Remand Centre), 2010 ABQB 6 (11 January 2010)The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta has declared that conditions under which untried prisoners were held in Edmonton Remand Centre (‘ERC’) pending trial for conspiracy to traffic illicit drugs resulted in a breach of their right not be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (s 7), the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (s 12) and the right to equality before and under the law without discrimination (s 15).

Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia [2010] ECHR 25965/04 (7 January 2010)In a landmark judgment the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that human trafficking fell within the scope of art 4 (prohibiting slavery, servitude and forced labour) of the European Convention.  The Court clarified the positive obligations upon States to investigate allegations of trafficking and to implement measures to prevent and protect people from human trafficking.