In the much publicised case of Australian Tax Office (ATO) whistleblower Richard Boyle, the South Australian Court of Appeal has found that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (the Act) does not provide whistleblowers with immunity from criminal, civil or administrative liability for actions taken in gathering evidence to support public interest disclosures (PID).
Read MoreThe Federal Court of Australia (the Court) has upheld a subpoena to produce documents issued against three civil society organisations. These organisations are now required to produce internal documents and are at risk of having to pay a large corporation’s costs in association with proceedings that they were not a party to.
Read MoreMark Panazzolo (the employee), a diesel mechanic, was successful in his claim against his former employer, Don’s Mechanical and Diesel Service Pty Ltd (Don’s Auto/the employer), for disability-based discrimination.
Read MoreOn 23 August, the Federal Court found that ‘Giggle for Girls’ had indirectly discriminated against a transgender woman by excluding her from an app which was designed as a ‘women-only safe space.’ This is the first court decision that determined that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) protects transgender women from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.
Read MoreOn 8 February 2023, the Victorian Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from Cotterill v Romanes [2013] VSC 498.
The Court of Appeal held that directions made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic under the emergency powers in the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (PHW Act) did not impermissibly burden the freedom of political communication implied in the Commonwealth Constitution.
Justice Mossop of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has found that an accused person, Alexander (a pseudonym), was imprisoned in contravention of section 19 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) in circumstances where they were on remand and imprisoned with people who had been convicted. Alexander’s right to be separated from convicted prisoners was not restricted by the operation of section 44 of the Corrections Management Act 2007 (ACT) (CMA). Accordingly, his Honour found that the requirements for “special or exceptional circumstances” favouring a grant of bail under section 9D of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (Bail Act) were satisfied.
Read MoreThe Victorian Supreme Court upheld the defendants' application for summary dismissal but granted leave for the plaintiff to reformulate his claim, in a representative proceeding (class action) challenging the validity of the decision to demolish three public housing towers in Melbourne. Justice Richards held the plaintiff's claim had no real prospect of success because the claim did not identify a decision that the plaintiff had standing to seek judicial review remedies for. The lack of justiciability of the decision was fatal to both the jurisdictional error ground and the Charter grounds in this matter.
Read MoreOn 30 November 2023, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the plaintiff, BZN, had not proven that the final review decision, which affirmed the findings of an investigation into his alleged sexual assault of a child, was: legally invalid; or unlawful under section 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA').
The judgment offers insights into how the HRA applies to public authorities and the standards they must meet in making decisions that adequately consider human rights.
Kamaljit Kaur Athwal successfully brought an action against the State of Queensland seeking a declaration that the restriction on possessing a knife for religious reasons inside a school was inconsistent with the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’).
Read MoreThe high-profile dispute between the Office of the eSafety (‘eSafety’) Commissioner and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) has tested key powers of Australia’s Online Safety Act and stimulated spirited debate on the interplay between online safety laws and rights to freedom of expression. eSafety sought enforcement of a removal notice pertaining to a bundle of content showing the high-profile stabbing in Sydney of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. The Federal Court refused to extend an ex parte interim injunction against X Corp, and held that geo-blocking is a reasonable step for removing content pursuant to a removal notice under section 109 of the Online Safety Act. The judgment suggests Parliament should clarify the meaning of ‘all reasonable steps’ in the context of the Online Safety Act.
Read MoreOn 9 April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ('ECHR') handed down rulings in three important matters concerning the human rights impacts of climate change. These rulings highlight the ECHR's stance on the human rights implications of national climate policies.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Queensland has found that directions issued by the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service and the Director General of Queensland Health to their employees were unlawful under section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ('HRA') or of no effect. Injunctions were granted to restrain the enforcement of the directions. In a separate proceeding, applicants who challenged the validity of directions issued by the Chief Health Officer were found to not have standing and the application was consequently dismissed.
This summary focuses on the aspects of the judgments that relate to the HRA.
Read MoreCurtin AJ of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Supreme Court has refused to grant an extension of time to bring claims for compensation or damages under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) to persons who allege their human rights were infringed by a public authority, being the Australian Capital Territory (Territory), because of the finding that the claims were futile. The case contains helpful discussion of the operation of the HRA.
Read MoreOn 10 May 2024, the High Court handed down its judgment in the case of ASF17. The decision followed the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ in November 2023, in which the Court held it was unlawful for the Australian Government to continue detaining a person in immigration detention where there was no real prospect of the person’s removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.
That case was brought by a plaintiff who was both stateless and engaged Australia’s international protection obligations. In ASF17, the Court considered whether the same limitation on detention applied to a person who did not have a formal protection finding, but could not be removed because his country of origin refuses to accept the forced return of its citizens and he had not consented to return.
Read MoreThe Federal Court dismissed two judicial review proceedings brought by the by the Environment Council of Central Queensland (‘ECoCeQ’) regarding the climate change effects of scope 3 coal mining emissions to Matters of National Environmental Significance under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
Read MoreThe 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 MoreOn 22 January 2021, the Coroner handed down his findings in the inquest into the death of Ms Cindy Leigh Miller in the Coroner’s Court of Queensland.
Ms Miller died in custody at the Ipswich Watchhouse on 21 April 2018. Ms Miller’s cause of death was ‘mixed drug toxicity’. The Coroner found that it took police at the Watchhouse well over an hour to realise that Ms Miller was unresponsive.
Read MoreA majority of the Supreme Court of the United States stayed an order by the District Court which suspended the requirement that people attend a hospital or clinic in-person in order to obtain mifepristone, a prescription drug used for medical abortions.
In July 2020, the District Court found that the in-person requirement posed an “undue burden” on people seeking an abortion in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court’s decision reinstates the Food and Drug Administration’s requirement that patients attend a hospital, clinic, or medical office to pick up mifepristone and sign a disclosure form.
Read MoreThe New Zealand High Court upheld the minimum voting age at 18 years as a justified limit on the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of age. As the Court found the age to be within a range of reasonable alternatives, this decision deferred the question of whether the voting age should be lowered to Parliament to decide.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Victoria has handed down a decision that owners corporations must undertake modification works to apartment buildings for owners and occupiers with a disability. The decision has been hailed as a significant win for people with a disability.
Read MoreIn a unanimous decision, the High Court has held that section 74AAA of the Corrections Act 1986 (Vic) did not prevent the plaintiff from seeking parole after a 28 year sentence.
Read MoreThe applicant, a man with chronic schizophrenia, was convicted of theft and hooliganism. The Ukraine Court suspended the criminal proceedings against him committing him first for psychiatric treatment. He was subsequently detained in the medical wing of a pre-trial detention centre for a month before being transferred to a specialised facility. While detained, he was subjected to the practices of restraint and seclusion.
Read MoreThe European Court of Human Rights has considered two cases in which it held that the relevant State party had interfered with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in art 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights. That right is protected by s 16(1) of the Victorian Charter. In both cases, domestic law required that the authorities be informed in advance of any planned public assembly.
Read MoreFrerot v France [2007] ECHR Application No 70204/01 (12 June 2007)
In a judgment handed down on 12 June 2007, the European Court of Human Rights held that particular strip searches conducted on the applicant violated the prohibition on degrading treatment in art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). Further, certain restrictions placed on the applicant’s correspondence violated the right to privacy protected by art 8 of the ECHR.
Read MoreBoehringer Ingelheim Limited & Ors v Vetplus Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 583 (20 June 2007) Canada (Attorney General) v JTI-Macdonald Corp 2007 SCC 30 (28 June 2007)
The scope and application of the right to freedom of expression in a commercial context has recently been considered by the UK Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. While neither court recognised a ‘corporate right’ to freedom of expression, both cases held that the right may be engaged by expression about commercial matters and, moreover, that the public have a prima facie right to ‘hear’ the expression (as opposed to a corporation having a right to ‘express’ the information).
Read MoreYilmaz v Turkey [2007] ECHR 17721/02 (5 June 2007)
The European Court of Human Rights has held that serious allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment must be the subject of expeditious, effective and independent investigation. It has further held that evidence of ill-treatment, particularly of persons in custody, will give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the ill-treatment occurred and shift the burden to the state to provide a ‘plausible explanation’ as to the injuries.
Read More