On 2 November 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the first substantive legal challenge to the validity of greater Melbourne’s lockdown laws. Justice Ginnane held that the curfew imposed between 9pm and 5am in greater Melbourne from 13 to 28 September 2020 (Curfew) was a lawful and proportionate measure in response to mounting cases of COVID-19 in Victoria.
Read MoreOn 26 October 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed an application by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to extend Wisconsin's deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots for the 2020 Presidential election by six days.
Read MoreOn 25 September 2020, the Victorian County Court held that use of body-worn camera footage (‘BWC footage’) obtained from police, ambulance, prison officers, and other prescribed persons under the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (Vic) (‘the Act’) cannot be used by courts in civil proceedings.
Read MoreOn 25 August 2020, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that a person diagnosed with a personality disorder should be treated the same as any other person who seeks to rely on an impairment of mental functioning as a mitigating factor in their sentencing.
Impairment of mental functioning can be considered as a mitigating factor in a person’s sentencing in accordance with the principles from R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
Before this case, however, the principles set out in R v Verdins were not applicable to people with personality disorders because of the case of DPP v O’Neill (2015) 47 VR 395, which had previously excluded personality disorders from consideration by the courts.
Read MoreA Full Bench (three Judges) of the New Zealand High Court unanimously held that the restrictions imposed by the New Zealand Government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic requiring New Zealanders to stay at home were consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). The Court also held, however, that some public statements went beyond what the orders then permitted and some restrictions were therefore, for a limited time, unlawful.
Read MoreIn August, the Federal Court ordered the Minister for Home Affairs to urgently remove an elderly man with multiple health conditions from a Melbourne immigration detention centre to guard against the serious risk of COVID-19 infection.
The man was 68 years old and suffered from health issues including type-2 diabetes and high cholesterol, which meant he was at high risk of severe disease or death if he were to contract COVID-19.
Read MoreThe Court of Appeal of England and Wales has held that the use of automated facial recognition technology (AFR) by the South Wales Police Force (SWP) unlawfully interfered with Edward Bridges' right to respect for and non-interference by public authorities in his private and family life, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Read MoreOn 8 August 2020, the Attorney-General successfully sought a mandatory injunction (court order) in the Supreme Court to prevent a planned sit-in protest organised by a group that advocates for the rights of refugees. The protest was to take place on the Story Bridge, a major traffic route in Brisbane, and be a ‘sit-down and not-move-on assembly’ during which arrests would be expected.
Read MoreOn 16 July 2020, the United States Supreme Court, without opinion, denied an application to vacate the Florida Eleventh Circuit Court’s (Eleventh Circuit) stay of a permanent injunction. The permanent injunction would have prevented Florida from enforcing a law that requires people with a felony conviction to pay all outstanding fines, fees, and restitution payments, in order to be able to vote.
Justice Sotomayor, joined in dissent by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, reproached the “Court’s inaction [as continuing] a trend of condoning disenfranchisement”.
Read MoreThe Federal Court of Australia upheld the decision of the Australian Border Force (ABF) to refuse an application by an ultra-orthodox Jewish couple for an exemption to the current travel ban, in order to attend their son’s wedding in the United States.
The Court found the ABF had correctly determined that the couple did not provide a “compelling reason for needing to leave Australian territory”, as required for an exemption.
Read More