Local authorities could owe a duty of care to children needing care, UK Supreme Court holds

Poole Borough Council v GN and another [2019] UKSC 25

The UK Supreme Court (the Court) examined whether the local authority had failed to fulfil a common law duty to protect two children, Colin and Graham, from harm inflicted by their neighbours. Drawing on the facts of the case, the Court held that the council was not liable for negligently failing to exercise its social services functions as there was no recognisable basis for a cause of action. While the Court dismissed the appeal, the decision in Poole leaves open the possibility for a duty of care to exist where an assumption of responsibility can be established.

Read More
Case Notes 03- Children and Young PeopleGuest UserChild Rights
US Supreme Court holds that international organisations can be sued in landmark decision

Jam et al v International Finance Corp (586 U.S. ____ 2019)

In a landmark decision in which a group of Indian farmers and fishing communities sued the International Finance Corporation (IFC) in relation to pollution from a coal-fired power plant financed by them, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held that international organisations that have a sufficient nexus to the United States, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Bank, no longer enjoy full immunity from suit.

Read More
Case Notes USA Court or TribunalGuest UserBusiness & Human Rights
Federal Court of Australia rules that government decision-makers must properly weigh risks of harm when cancelling or refusing visas on ‘character’ grounds

Minister for Home Affairs v Omar [2019] FCAFC 188

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has reminded Government decision-makers of their responsibility to properly consider risks of harm and threats to safety when cancelling or refusing a visa on ‘character’ grounds.

The Court unanimously ruled that the Assistant Minister made a jurisdictional error in deciding not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Omar’s visa, by failing to adequately consider risks of harm he would face on return to Somalia, including by deferring a consideration of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations.

Read More
Case Notes 10- Immigration/AsylumGuest UserRefugee & Asylum Seeker Rights
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
Policy preventing public servants from voicing political opinions is constitutional, High Court holds

Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23

In a recent case, the High Court of Australia has confirmed there is not an unfettered right to the implied freedom of political communication and that Australian Public Service (APS) employees must at all times behave in a way that upholds the values of the APS, which extends to comments made anonymously on social media.  

Read More
Case Notes 08- Freedom of ExpressionGuest UserDemocratic Freedoms
Mandatory referrals by conscientious objectors uphold equality and are consistent with human rights standards

Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [2019] ONCA 393

Two policies required Ontario medical professionals to refer their patients to alternative health care providers, even if the medical professionals conscientiously objected on religious grounds to providing the health care.

There were two key issues in this case:

  • Did the mandatory referral policies infringe the right to freedom of religion?  If so, were the means chosen to limit the right demonstrably justified?

  • Were the mandatory referral policies discriminatory?

The Ontario Court of Appeal balanced the rights of patients to access equitable health care with the rights of physicians with religious convictions and held that:

  • While the policies infringed the right to religious freedom, this was justified and reasonable in the circumstances; and

  • The policies did not discriminate against physicians with a religious belief.

Read More
Case Notes Women's RightsGuest UserHealth
High Court of Australia upholds Queensland ban on political donations by property developers

Spence v Queensland [2019] HCA 15

The High Court (the Court) upheld the validity of Queensland anti-corruption measures which prohibit the making of political donations by property developers. The decision supports legislative efforts to improve transparency and accountability in electoral funding. However, it may also be seen as giving permission to parliaments to ban political donations from certain classes of donors even where strong evidence of corruption is lacking.

Read More
Case Notes 08- Freedom of ExpressionGuest UserDemocratic Freedoms
High Court of Australia upholds laws that protect people from being accosted and harassed outside abortion clinics

Kathleen Clubb v Alyce Edwards & Anor; John Graham Preston v Elizabeth Avery & Anor [2019] HCA 11 (10 April 2019)

In this landmark decision, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of safe access zone laws in Victoria and Tasmania, in particular, provisions that prohibit certain communications and protests about abortion within 150 metres of abortion clinics.

Read More
Case Notes 08- Freedom of Expression, Case Notes 15- ProtestGuest UserWomen’s Rights
High Court Recognises Significance of Cultural and Spiritual Loss in Native Title Decision

Northern Territory of Australia v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor; Commonwealth of Australia v Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples & Anor; Mr A Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples v Northern Territory of Australia & Anor [2019] HCA 7

The High Court in hearing its first ever native title compensation case, ultimately reduced the amount of native title awarded to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples of Timber Creek (Claimants). However, significantly, the Court rejected the appellants’ arguments against the cultural loss amount, upholding the trial judge’s original determination of $1.3 million.

Read More
Case Notes 19- IndigenousGuest UserAboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples' Rights
Preventative detentions during royal wedding not a breach of rights to liberty and security, European Court of Human Rights holds

Eiseman-Renyard v the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, First Section, Application No 57884/17, 5 March 2019)

On 5 March 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (First Section) (the Court) declared inadmissible the applications of eight individuals who claimed that their arrests and subsequent detentions in London during Prince William and Catherine Middleton's wedding were a breach of their rights to liberty and security under art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

Read More
Case Notes 08- Freedom of ExpressionGuest UserDemocratic Freedoms
NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal awards compensation to Aboriginal tenants for uninhabitable housing

Various Applicants from Santa Teresa v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2019] NTCAT 7

The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has awarded compensation to Aboriginal tenants in the remote community of Santa Teresa over the Northern Territory government's failure to provide habitable public housing. Residents of 70 households in Santa Teresa brought the action against the Northern Territory government. In this decision, the first four of these cases proceeded to hearing, and the Tribunal awarded compensation in each case.

Read More
Case Notes 19- IndigenousGuest UserHousing, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples' Rights
NT Supreme Court case establishes right to humane housing for residents of Santa Teresa community

Young & Conway v Chief Executive Officer, Housing [2020] NTSC 59

The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) initially examined the cases of Jasmine Cavanagh, Enid Young, Robert Conway and Clayton Smith in Various Applications from Santa Teresa v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2019] NTCAT 7. The case involved Aboriginal residents of the remote community of Ltyentye Apurte (also known as Santa Teresa) challenging the poor housing conditions they were subjected to. A summary of that case is available here.

Two of the people involved in that case – Enid Young and Robert Conway (the appellants) – appealed that decision to the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The respondent was the Chief Executive Officer (Housing), a body corporate created under the Housing Act 1982 (NT) for the purpose of entering into public housing tenancy agreements.

The Northern Territory Supreme Court ruled in favour of Ms Young and the late Mr Conway on two grounds in their appeal and established a precedent that remote community tenants must be provided with housing that meets contemporary standards of ‘humaneness, suitability and reasonable comfort’.

Read More
AnnaFordyceHousing, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples' Rights
High Court holds that lower caps on third party electoral expenditure breach the implied freedom of political communication

Unions NSW v New South Wales [2019] HCA 1 (29 January 2019)

The High Court of Australia unanimously held that a NSW law that imposed a lower cap on the allowable electoral expenditure for third party campaigners compared with expenditure allowed for political parties and candidates was unconstitutional, as it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication.

Read More
Case Notes 08- Freedom of ExpressionGuest UserDemocratic Freedoms
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
Supreme Court of Canada upholds constitutional right of non-resident Canadians to vote in elections

Frank v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1 (11 January 2019)

Non-resident Canadian citizens who had been residing outside of Canada for five or more consecutive years (Non-Residents) lost the right to vote in Canadian federal elections under provisions of the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c 9 (the Act).  Two Non-Residents Gillian Frank and Jamie Duong (Appellants) challenged this under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) and ultimately succeeded as the infringements on their voting rights were held to be unconstitutional.

Read More
Case Notes 20- Political participationGuest UserDemocratic Freedoms