Posts in Case Notes 14- Privacy
Supreme Court of Victoria finds that random urine testing, and associated strip searches, are incompatible with human rights

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.

Read More
Case Notes, Case Notes 13- Prison/Conditions of Detention, Case Notes 14- Privacy, Case Notes Supreme Court of Victoria, Victorian charter of human rightsAnnaFordycePrisoner Rights, Privacy, Human Rights Law & Institutions
UK High Court upholds police use of automated facial recognition technology to identify suspects

R (on the application of Edward Bridges) v The Chief Constable of South Wales [2019] EWHC 2341

The High Court of England and Wales has confirmed that the use of automated facial recognition technology (AFR) to match the faces of members of the public against police watchlists is lawful.  The Court found that although the use of AFR infringes an individual’s right to respect for their privacy, the interference is justifiable for law enforcement purposes, and the current UK legal regime is adequate to ensure its appropriate and non-arbitrary use.

This is the first time any court has considered AFR, and marks an important test for the legal parameters of this technology as it develops and is deployed more widely.

Read More
Case Notes 14- PrivacyGuest UserDemocratic Freedoms, Privacy
European Court of Human Rights holds UK's "Extremism Database" falls foul of privacy and data retention laws

Catt v The United Kingdom (Case No. 43514/15), European Court of Human Rights, 24 January 2019 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held that an "Extremism Database" maintained by UK police violated an activist's right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention).

Read More
Case Notes 14- PrivacyGuest UserCounter-terrorism, Privacy
UK Surveillance Regime Violates Human Rights to Privacy and Free Speech, European Court of Human Rights holds 

Big Brother Watch and Others v The United Kingdom (Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15) (13 September 2018)

The European Court of Human Rights has found that the UK's bulk interception regime violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect private and family life)because of insufficient safeguards governing the selection of intercepted communications and related communications data. Further, the Courtheld that the regime for obtaining data from communications providers violated Article 8 of the Convention because it was not in accordance with EU law that requires data interference to combat "serious crime" (not just "crime"), and for access to retained data to be subject to prior judicial or administrative review. Finally, the Court found that the bulk interception regime and the regime for obtaining communications data from communications service providers violated Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) because of insufficient safeguards for confidential journalistic material. 

Read More
Case Notes 14- PrivacyGuest UserPrivacy
UK High Court finds BBC broadcast breaches Cliff Richard’s right to privacy

Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch)

The UK High Court has found that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) infringed the privacy of renowned musician Sir Cliff Richard (Sir Cliff) by broadcasting a raid by the South Yorkshire Police (the SYP) following an allegation of historical sexual offences.

Read More
Case Notes 14- PrivacyGuest UserPrivacy
US Supreme Court holds warrant is required for accessing location data

Carpenter v United States, S. Ct.  (22 June 2018)

The US Supreme Court held that a warrant is required for police to access cell site location information (CSLI) from a cell phone company under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts for the majority stated that the Court would "decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information".

Read More
Case Notes 14- PrivacyGuest UserPrivacy
Interception of communications is consistent with human rights, European Court of Human Rights rules

Centrum för Rättvisa v Sweden (Application no 35252/08) (19 June 2018)

In June this year, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that a scheme providing for the bulk interception of electronic signals in Sweden for foreign surveillance purposes, was consistent with the rights set out in the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention). The decision cements the high threshold required for the protection of the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence under article 8 of the Convention.

Read More
Case Notes 14- PrivacyGuest UserPrivacy, Counter-terrorism