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.
UK government official whistleblower wins unfair dismissal case against UK government
Ms C Stewart v Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office: 2204590/2022. A senior UK government official turned whistleblower succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal against her employer.
Read more
Hawthorn Football Club settles Racial Discrimination Proceeding brought by First Nations former players
A high-profile legal dispute involving allegations of racial discrimination and mistreatment at Hawthorn Football Club (the Club) has concluded through private settlement. The Proceeding was initiated in the Federal Court of Australia by former First Nations players, their families and intimate partners.
Read more
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 moreACNC: 31 117 719 267 | Connect with the Human Rights Law Centre
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.