LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCAFC 90The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) dismissed an application by LibertyWorks Inc which challenged the validity the Health Minister's power to prevent Australians from leaving the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing heavily on the context and purpose of the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth), the Court held that while it may be accepted that the travel restrictions were "harsh" and intruded on individual rights, they were nevertheless authorised by the legislation.

Big Brother Watch and others v the United Kingdom (Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15)On 25 May 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) ruled that the United Kingdom's bulk surveillance regime was incompatible with Article 8 (which provides protections for the right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (which provides for the protection of freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Mr Amjad Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Limited & Others [2020] EWHC 901 (QB) (17 April 2020)In a potentially significant decision, the High Court of England and Wales has accepted the existence of a duty of care to protect a whistleblower and awarded damages of more than US$10 million. The case raises the intriguing possibility that a cognate duty might exist in Australian law.

[2021] VSC 148 (13 April 2021)On 29 March 2021, the Supreme Court of Victoria granted bail to a man charged with drug offences on the basis that he would likely be held in custody for three years before he was tried, and because there was immediate availability in a residential rehabilitation centre. The Court referred to the man as a potential “victim” of very lengthy delays in court processes due to COVID-19. The Court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation in addressing the root causes of offending and thereby reducing the likelihood of reoffending and, in turn, keeping the community safer. Ultimately, the Court found that the length of pre-trial custody coupled with the availability of appropriate rehabilitation options amounted to 'exceptional circumstances' sufficient to justify bail.

Vavřička v the Czech Republic (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application Nos 47621/13, 3867/14, 73094/14, 19298/15, 19306/15 and 43883/15, 8 April 2021)On 8 April 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Czech Republic's regime for the mandatory vaccination of children did not violate the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

DRJ & Ors v Commissioner of Victims Rights & Anor [2021] HCASL 53; [2020] NSWCA 242Under the Victim Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) (VRSA), victims of an "act of violence" are eligible for compensation and for payment of counselling costs.

Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 7) [2021] FCA 237On 19 March 2021, the Federal Court of Australia held that the operator of the Montara oil field breached its duty of care towards thousands of seaweed farmers in Indonesia by causing, or materially contributing to, the death and loss of seaweed crops via a large oil spill in 2009.

HA (a pseudonym) v The Queen S EAPCR 2021 0019 (19 March 2021)The Victorian Supreme Court overturned a decision to refuse bail to a 15 year old child. In deciding to grant a child bail, Justice Maxwell and Justice Kaye were guided by the “fundamental principle” of the youth legal system to “keep children out of custody wherever possible.” Their Honours also raised the “unacceptable” rate of over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the criminal legal system and considered that the “courts have a duty, in cases such as this, to be conscious of the need to avoid compounding those incarceration rates.”

Minogue v Thompson [2021] VSC 56 (16 February 2021)The Victorian Supreme Court has found that whilst being held in prison, a person’s right to privacy and the right to be treated with dignity while deprived of liberty under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) were violated when he was subjected to random drug and alcohol testing and a strip search before providing a urine sample for such testing. While Justice Richards found that Dr Minogue’s Charter rights were breached, Her Honour is yet to make orders on relief.

XAD (by her litigation guardian XAE) v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 12XAD, a child classified as an “unauthorised maritime arrival” for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), sought (by her litigation guardian XAE) an order to compel either the Minister for Immigration[1] or the Minister for Home Affairs to consider her application for a protection visa.

Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and another [2021] UKSC 3The UK Supreme Court has allowed an appeal from the Court of Appeal on the basis that two Nigerian communities have an arguable case that a UK domiciled parent company owes them a duty of care in respect of alleged systemic health, safety and environmental failings of its Nigerian subsidiary company.

Minister for Home Affairs v Benbrika [2021] HCA 4; (2021) 95 ALJR 166Division 105A of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) empowers a court to make an order to keep a terrorist offender imprisoned after the expiry of their sentence where they pose an unacceptable risk of committing certain offences if released into the community. By majority (5:2), the High Court held that this power was within the judicial power of the Commonwealth.