Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v ACT Human Rights Commission [2008] ACTAAT 19 (24 July 2008)The ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal has considered the interpretative principle and permissible limitations on human rights under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) in a case concerning exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation.

R(C) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] EWCA Civ 882 (28 July 2008)In this case, the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that rules introduced to maintain good order and discipline in children detained in Secure Training Centres (‘STCs’) should be quashed for breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and other ill-treatment.

JT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 878 (28 July 2008) In a recent decision informed by the interpretive principle in s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK), the England and Wales Court of Appeal has read an additional word into a provision of the Asylum & Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 (UK) to ensure human rights compatibility.  Despite there being no ambiguity in the provision, the court was willing to read in the additional word so that the provision would not offend the separation of powers doctrine and, implicitly, the right to a fair hearing.

I v Finland [2008] ECHR 20511/03 (17 July 2008)The European Court of Human Rights has held that the measures taken by a Finnish hospital to safeguard the right to respect for private life of an HIV-positive patient of the hospital, who was also employed by the hospital from time to time as a nurse, were inadequate and in violation of art 8 (the right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle [2008] UKHL 50 (30 July 2008) In this case, the House of Lords considered the applicability of the leading right to life case, Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245, in which the European Court set out the obligations on member states in relation to the right to life.

Doherty & Ors v Birmingham City Council [2008] UKHL 57 (30 July 2008) The UK House of Lords has considered the procedural safeguards against eviction established by the right to respect for privacy and the home under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 (25 July 2008) This case involved a dentist who was criminally charged with the indecent assault of three patients. He was acquitted of these charges but was then subjected to professional disciplinary action.

09-003 [2008] VMHRB 1 (8 July 2008) In this case, concerning the failure of the Mental Health Board to conduct a review of the involuntary treatment of a patient under the Mental Health Act, a number of very significant Charter issues arose.

X v Croatia [2008] ECHR 11223/04 (17 July 2008)The European Court of Human Rights has held that, by allowing an individual to be excluded from participating in their child’s adoption proceedings, Croatia violated its obligation to ensure the right to respect for private and family life under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 (27 June 2008) The Supreme Court of Canada has again emphasised the importance of the common law evolving in a manner that is consistent with Charter values.This was a private law defamation case involving a controversial radio talk show host, ‘M’, and a social activist opposed to any positive portrayal of a gay lifestyle, ‘S’.  M publicly likened S to Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan and skinheads and S claimed defamation because she had never advocated violence against homosexuals.  The trial judge dismissed the action on the basis that, while statements complained of in the editorial were defamatory, the defence of fair comment applied and provided a complete defence.

VM v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service) 2008 BCSC 449 (13 June 2008) The Supreme Court of British Columbia has held that the decisions of a Provincial Courtand a public official to authorise medically-necessary blood transfusions for four infants against the express wishes of their parents did not breach the parents’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Scoppola v Italy [2008] ECHR 50550/06 (10 June 2008)The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of art 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicant’s conditions of detention were not appropriate to his state of health.