Double Jeopardy does not Prohibit Disciplinary Proceedings
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.
The dentist claimed that the subsequent charges by the Dental Complaints Assessment Committee were contrary to the common law principle against double jeopardy and in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The Supreme Court considered the principal issue to be whether the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, insofar as they concerned allegations that were the subject of acquittal by the jury, amounted to an abuse of process. Particular consideration was given to the standard of proof that applies to disciplinary proceedings under the Dental Act. A majority of the Supreme Court held that there was no abuse of process and the Disciplinary Tribunal could properly consider the alleged indecent assaults.
The decision is available at http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2008/55.html.
Montana Supreme Court rules constitutional right to a stable climate was violated by law blocking review of greenhouse gas impacts
On 13 March 2020, 16 young people sued the State of Montana, the Governor, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the Montana Department of Transportation. Held v Montana shows how powerful a right to a healthy environment can be in combatting environmental damage from climate change.
Read more
Federal Court rules against injunction to prevent animal cruelty in Victorian abattoir
The Game Meats Company of Australia attempted to stop Farm Transparency International Ltd from publishing a 14-minute video depicting alleged "extreme animal cruelty" obtained by a hidden camera.
Read more
Landmark decision ordering Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% overturned by Hague Court of Appeal
On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the landmark 2021 decision of the District Court of The Hague (District Court) in Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell, which had ordered Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% by the end of 2030.
Read more
Acknowledgement of Country
The Human Rights Law Centre acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands across Australia, including the lands of the Wurundjeri, Boon Wurrung, Gadigal, Ngunnawal, Cammeraygal, Darug, Wadawurrung, Turrbal and Jagera people where we work from.
We pay our respect to Elders past and present. This land always was, and always will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. Sovereignty has never been ceded.
WARNING: This site contains images or names of people who have passed away.