Posts tagged 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
Police use of facial recognition technology infringes European Convention on Human Rights

R (on the application of Edward Bridges) v The Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058

The 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 More
AnnaFordyceDemocratic Freedoms, Privacy
The High Court of Australia quashes search warrant on journalist's home

Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14

The High Court of Australia unanimously held that the search warrant relied upon by the Australian Federal Police to enter and search the residence of journalist, Ms Annika Smethurst, was invalid. The invalidity of the search warrant rendered the AFP's entry into and search of Ms Smethurst's residence unlawful and an act of trespass.

Read More
Case Notes High Court of Australia, Case Notes 08- Freedom of Expression, Case Notes 16- Public AuthoritiesAnnaFordycePrivacy, Police, Democratic Freedoms
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
European Court of Justice finds asylum seeker may not be subjected to a psychological test to determine sexual orientation

F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Court of Justice of the European Union, C473/16, 28 January 2018)

The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that subjecting an asylum seeker to psychological tests, designed to provide an indication of their sexual orientation, breaches their right to respect for private and family life under Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Read More
HRLC AdminLGBTI Rights, Refugee & Asylum Seeker Rights, Privacy
European Court of Human Rights tips the balance in favour of privacy over freedom of expression on social media

Einarsson v. Iceland (Application no. 24703/15) [2017] ECHR 7 November 2017

The European Court of Human Rights has overturned a decision of the Iceland Supreme Court and upheld a well-known commentator’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, over an individual’s right to exercise freedom of expression under Article 10 in the context of an Instagram post accusing him of rape.

Read More
HRLC AdminDemocratic Freedoms, Privacy
European Court of Justice finds EU law does not allow indiscriminate collection of electronic communications data and requires controls on access to retained data

Tele2 Sverige AB v Post-och telestyrelsen; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson and others (C-203/15 and C-698/15), EU:C:2016:970

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that EU law precludes national laws that allow for the indiscriminate retention of all electronic communications data of all subscribers and users. It also found that national laws must put parameters around the circumstances in which authorities can access the retained data, and in particular access should be:

  • restricted solely to access for the purpose of fighting serious crime;
  • subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority; and
  • subject to a requirement that the data so accessed should be retained within the European Union.
Read More
HRLC AdminPrivacy, Democratic Freedoms
Scotland's Named Persons Scheme: balancing children's welfare against privacy rights

Case of The Christian Institute and others v The Lord Advocate (Scotland) [2016] UKSC 51 (28 July 2016)

In a recent judgment, the United Kingdom Supreme Court unanimously blocked the introduction of the Scottish Government's Named Persons scheme (Scheme), due to its incompatibility with article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Scheme was part of a package of child welfare measures introduced under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (the Act).

Read More
MichelleBennettChild Rights, Privacy
High Court rules on Department of Immigration 'data breach' cases

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29 (27 July 2016)

On 10 February 2014 the Department of Immigration and Border Protection inadvertently published on its website the identifying details of 9,258 applicants for protection visas held in immigration detention (“Data Breach”). The Data Breach carried the risk that authorities in the named detainees’ countries of origin would become aware that they had sought protection in Australia, creating a new and independent risk of harm if those detainees were returned to those countries. The Department conducted International Treaties Obligations Assessments (“ITOAs”) to determine if the Data Breach affected Australia’s non-refoulement obligations with respect to the detainees.

Read More
MichelleBennettRefugee & Asylum Seeker Rights, Privacy
ECHR confirms that right to freedom of expression breached in taking action against prisoners for making complaints

Case of Shahanov and Palfreeman v Bulgaria (Application nos. 35365/12 and 69125/12) [2016] ECHR 686 (21 July 2016)

The applicants, Mr Shahanov and Mr Palfreeman, are currently serving extended prison sentences in Bulgaria's Plovdiv and Sofia Prisons. Both applicants commenced proceedings against the Republic of Bulgaria in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2012. The ECHR subsequently joined the proceedings due to their similarity.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrisoner Rights, Privacy
ECHR finds failure to recognise parents of children born as a result of international commercial surrogacy violates the right to privacy

Case of Foulon and Bouvet v France (Application No’s 9063/14 and 10410/14) (21 July 2016) 

The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has delivered a judgment protecting the rights of children born as a result of international commercial surrogacy to have their relationships with their biological parents legally recognised. The Court unanimously found that refusal by French authorities to transcribe the birth certificates of children born under surrogacy agreements in India violated the children's right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). The judgment resolves past uncertainty as to whether the Court's earlier decisions on surrogacy would extend to same-sex families.

Read More
MichelleBennettLGBTI Rights, Child Rights, Privacy, Discrimination & Equality
Human Rights Committee finds against Ireland for restrictive abortion laws

Mellet v Ireland (Views adopted by the Committee under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2324/2013)

In March 2016, the Human Rights Committee (Committee), which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), determined that Irish laws that forced a woman whose foetus had congenital heart defects (and a low chance of survival) to procure an abortion overseas contravened the ICCPR.  The Committee determined that Articles 7 (privacy), 17 (cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment) and 26 (equality before the law) of the ICCPR were violated and the Irish government should pay compensation to the claimant and provide her with needed psychological treatment.  The Committee also recommended that Ireland amend its laws on voluntary termination, and if necessary its constitution, to ensure compliance with the ICCPR and prevent similar violations occurring.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Discrimination & Equality
The right to privacy in the internet age: PJS v News Group Newspapers

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26

A married celebrity had a threesome. His partner wasn’t one of the three. The affair was published widely on the internet outside the UK. A UK newspaper wanted to publish the story too. Demonstrating that it takes the right to privacy seriously in the age of the internet, the Supreme Court in May 2016 upheld an injunction preventing the publication of the story in the UK.

The decision confirms that the right to privacy protects not just secrecy, but intrusion into private life. Therefore the fact that the information was already publicly accessible was not fatal – the injunction would prevent additional intrusion and harm to the applicant and his family caused by print publication.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Child Rights
Police had power to question journalists in contact with whistle blower Edward Snowden

Regina (David Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 6

The UK Court of Appeal has upheld the exercise of a police power under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (UK) (the Act) to stop and question a person to determine whether they are or have been 'concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism'. Importantly, the Court has also declared that Schedule 7 is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention), insofar as it applies to journalistic material.

Read More
MichelleBennettDemocratic Freedoms, Privacy, Police
Right to Privacy: Messaging your friends at work? You may be watched

Case of Bărbulescu v Romania (Application no. 61496/08) (12 January 2016)

Bǎrbulescu v Romania concerns an employee challenging his termination based on his use of his work computer for personal communication. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held by 6 votes to 1 that although Mr Bǎrbulescu’s employer reading his personal Yahoo Messenger messages was an interference with his right to respect for private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right was not violated as the interference was limited in scope and proportionate.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy
Secret surveillance in Russia violates the right to privacy

Zakharov v Russia (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application no. 47143/06, 4 December 2015)

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously held that the Russian system of secret interception of mobile telephone communications was a violation of article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Article 8 guarantees, among other things, the right to respect for private life and correspondence. In addition, the Court accepted that if certain conditions are satisfied an applicant can claim to be the victim of a violation of article 8 due to the mere existence of a secret surveillance measure. The conditions were met in this case, therefore the applicant did not have to demonstrate that he was at risk of being subject to secret surveillance. Instead, the legislation was examined in the abstract.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy
Supreme Court declines to compel Melbourne City council to remove anti-abortionists from fertility clinic

Fertility Control Clinic v Melbourne City Council [2015] VSC 424 (26 August 2015)

On 26 August 2015, Justice McDonald of the Victorian Supreme Court handed down judgement in a case concerning the local government’s duties to remedy harmful activities of anti-abortionists outside an East Melbourne fertility clinic. His Honour found that although the Melbourne City council (the council) has a duty to remedy nuisances under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) (the Act) and that the anti-abortionists’ activities may constitute a nuisance, nonetheless in this case there had been no actual or constructive failure by the council to perform its duties under the Act.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Democratic Freedoms
US Supreme Court decides in favour of marriage equality

Obergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (26 June 2015)

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v Hodges is a landmark victory that activists have been working towards for over a decade. In a 5-4 judgment the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires States of the United States to licence marriage equality.

Read More
MichelleBennettLGBTI Rights, Privacy, Discrimination & Equality
Distinguishing deprivation of liberty from empathetic care: will we 'know it when we see it'?

Bournemouth Borough Council v PS & Anor [2015] EWCOP 39

The UK Court of Protection was recently asked to rule whether the care regime of a 28-year-old man with severe autism ('Ben') amounted to a deprivation of liberty. Justice Mostyn ultimately concluded that the arrangements were in Ben's best interests, and did not amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Court declined to provide a test for 'deprivation of liberty' noting simply that the Court would 'know it when we see it'.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Disability & Mental Health
UK Court rules that transgender woman is not entitled to amend her childrens’ birth certificates

JK, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2015] EWHC 990 (Admin) (20 April 2015) 

The UK High Court of Justice has held that the right to have one's private life respected under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) does not extend to the right of a transgender woman to amend her children’s birth certificates to reflect her transition. 

Read More
MichelleBennettLGBTI Rights, Privacy, Discrimination & Equality
Random stops and license checks by police lawful - coercive questioning not

DPP v Kaba [2014] VSC 52 (18 December 2014)

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that while the police did have the power to conduct a random stop and license check of Mr Kaba, the officers’ subsequent coercive questioning of him disproportionately limited his rights to privacy and freedom of movement under the Victorian Charter and was therefore unlawful.

Read More
MichelleBennettDemocratic Freedoms, Police, Discrimination & Equality, Privacy
European Court upholds France's burqa ban

S.A.S v France (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 43835/11, 1 July 2014)

On 1 July 2014, the European Court of Human Rights held that a French law prohibiting the concealment of one's face in public places does not breach the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Whilst it was held that the prohibition impinges on the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to respect for private and family life, the government was entitled to impose the prohibition on the grounds that the ban protects the rights and freedoms of others.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Democratic Freedoms, Human Rights Law & Institutions, Discrimination & Equality
US Supreme Court rules on buffer zone outside reproductive health clinic

McCullen v Coakley, 573 US ___ (2014) (26 June 2014)

The United States Supreme Court has overturned a Massachusetts law creating a 35 foot buffer zone outside reproductive health facilities.  The Supreme Court held that the law violates the first amendment of the US Constitution because, while the buffer zone serves the State’s legitimate interests in maintaining public safety and preserving access to healthcare, it ‘burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary’.

Read More
MichelleBennettDemocratic Freedoms, Privacy, Health, Women’s Rights
Laws requiring disclosure of cautions for minor past offences breach right to private life

R (on the application of T and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2014] UKSC 35 (18 June 2014)

The UK Supreme Court considered the right to privacy in the context of laws requiring the issuance of criminal record certificates that contain references to minor past offences. The Court held that laws requiring the disclosure of data relating to cautions and warnings given for minor offences constituted an interference with the right to respect for private life enshrined in article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention).

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy
One week of passive smoking not a prisoners’ rights violation

R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 380 (1 April 2014)

The England and Wales Court of Appeal has found that exposing a prisoner who is a non-smoker to second hand smoke for seven days by forcing him to share a cell with a smoker did not amount to interference with his rights under either article 8 (the right to privacy) or article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrisoner Rights, Discrimination & Equality, Privacy
Airport stop and search of stolen NSA data did not breach freedom of expression

Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2014] EWHC 255 (Admin) (19 February 2014)

Police stopped David Miranda at Heathrow airport and confiscated encrypted National Security Agency material that had originally been stolen by Edward Snowden. Mr Miranda was carrying the data to assist a Guardian journalist. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales rejected Mr Miranda’s arguments that the stop and search had interfered with his right to freedom of expression under English common law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that it was a proportionate measure in the circumstances, and was a permissible restriction prescribed by law in the interests of national security and safety.

Read More
MichelleBennettCounter-terrorism, Privacy, Democratic Freedoms
UK High Court allows proceedings against Google for privacy breaches

Vidal-Hall & Ors v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) (16 January 2014)

The High Court of Justice has allowed a group of claimants to issue legal proceedings in the UK against US-based Google Inc in regards to the tracking and collation of information about their internet usage. Justice Tugendhat held that the UK courts had jurisdiction to hear the claims and that there is a tort of “misuse of private information”. 

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy
Open justice may prevail over the best interests of a child and the right to privacy and family

R (On the application of Stephen Fagan) v Secretary of State for Justice and Times Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1275 (21 October 2013)

The UK Court of Appeal has held that potential breaches to the right to family and privacy are not necessarily sufficient to justify a derogation from the principle of open justice in the courts. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the principle of open justice may prevail even where it is against the best interests of a child.

Read More
MichelleBennettChild Rights, Privacy, Prisoner Rights
DNA collection a legitimate interference with privacy rights

R (on the application of R) v A Chief Constable [2013] EWHC 2864 (Admin) (24 September 2013)

The UK High Court of Justice held that the power to demand a non-intimate sample from an individual previously convicted of serious offences without that individual’s consent was a proportionate interference with the right of respect for that person’s private life.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Human Rights Law & Institutions
The UK Court of Appeal considers the relevance of article 8 of the ECHR to the statutory power to deport foreign criminals

MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192 (8 October 2013)

The United Kingdom Court of Appeal held that paragraphs 398, 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules (UK) provide a complete code for establishing when a “foreign criminal” may be deported from the UK in compliance with the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Prisoner Rights, Human Rights Law & Institutions, Foreign Policy
Criminalising consensual sex between young people breaches their rights to privacy and dignity

Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development [2013] ZACC 35 (3 October 2013)

The Constitutional Court of South Africa has found that laws criminalising consensual sex between young people are unconstitutional. The Court held the laws unjustifiably violate the dignity and privacy of young people and are not in the best interests of the child.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Child Rights
South Africa to review absolute confidentiality of asylum applications after decision on freedom of expression

Mail and Guardian Media Limited and Others v Chipu N.O. and Others Case CCT 136/12 - [2013] ZACC 32 (27 September 2013)

The Constitutional Court of South Africa has upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of section 21(5) of the Refugees Act, which provides for the absolute confidentiality of asylum applications in South Africa. The Court declared that the absolute confidentiality of asylum applications was an unjustifiable limitation on the constitutional right to freedom of expression and gave Parliament two years to remedy the defect in the legislation. In the interim, the Refugee Appeal Board (RAB) has been given a discretion to allow third parties access to hearings in particular circumstances.

Read More
MichelleBennettRefugee & Asylum Seeker Rights, Privacy
ECHR calls for clear regulations on assisted suicide but leaves content to the States

Gross v Switzerland [2013] ECHR, Application no. 67810/10 (14 May 2013)

The European Court of Human Rights has held that Switzerland’s failure to provide clear guidelines as to when assisted suicide is permitted breached the right to respect for private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court declined to comment as to whether Switzerland breached article 8 by failing to assist a person, who wished to die but was not suffering from a terminal illness, to end her life.

Read More
MichelleBennettHealth, Privacy, Human Rights Law & Institutions
Obligation to provide personal information in “Long Form” Census not a breach of the right to privacy

Finley v The Queen, 2013 SKCA 47 (2 May 2013) (Saskatchewan Court of Appeal) 

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan in Canada has held that the government did not contravene the right to privacy protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by requesting personal information from individuals through Census questions. A person is compelled to complete the Census, even though they are required to divulge personal information over which they could claim the right to privacy in other, non-regulatory settings.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy
Police retention of personal information may breach privacy, even when information is publicly available or legally obtained

Catt v ACPO and Ors; T v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 192 (14 March 2013)

The English Court of Appeal upheld two appeals from the Divisional Court regarding the right to respect to private life under article 8(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and the retention of information by the police. The Court found that, even in cases where the collection of information did not breach the right to privacy or the information was publicly available, systematic collation and retention of such information may amount to an unjustifiable infringement of the right to privacy.

Read More
MichelleBennettPolice, Privacy
Balancing of the right to family life against the protection of the child

J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has considered the appropriate balance to be struck between the right of the child to live in a safe and nurturing environment and the right to family life in circumstances where those two rights are said to be in conflict. Although these rights are most often complementary, there are unfortunate cases where a child is at risk of being harmed by a family member and protecting the child (and upholding their human rights) can necessitate an intrusion by the State into a family’s private life. In this judgment, the Court made a weighted legal analysis of when and how such an intrusion can be justified.

Read More
MichelleBennettChild Rights, Privacy, Foreign Policy
Unauthorised police surveillance in public place does not violate right to privacy

Kinloch (Appellant) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Respondent) (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 62 (19 December 2012) 

The UK Supreme Court held that an unauthorised police surveillance operation did not breach an individual’s right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was because the surveillance occurred in public places and the subject of the surveillance had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Police
Publication of personal photographs: Weighing freedom of expression against privacy

Verlagsruppe News Gmbh and Bobi v Austria [2012] ECHR, Application no 59631/09 (4 December 2012) 

The European Court of Human Rights was asked to weigh the right to freedom of expression against the right of individuals to privacy. The Court found that the decision of a domestic Austrian court to restrain publication of a photograph involving a Catholic priest embroiled in a controversy, but not to grant damages for defamation, was a fair balance between articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Read More
MichelleBennettPrivacy, Democratic Freedoms
No protection for donor offspring

Pratten v British Columbia (Attorney General) 2012 BCCA 480 (27 November 2012)

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Court of Appeal) recently held that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) does not create a positive right for donor conceived individuals to know their biological origins. In this case, the plaintiff argued that by enacting legislation only for the benefit of adoptees, the legislature discriminated against adults conceived from anonymous donors. The plaintiff also argued that the Charter created a positive right for donor offspring to access information about their biological origins. The Court of Appeal rejected these claims, overturning a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Supreme Court).

Read More
MichelleBennettChild Rights, Privacy
Forcing journalists to reveal sources would have “chilling effect” on freedom of expression

Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media BV and Others v The Netherlands [2012] ECHR, Application no. 39315/06 (22 November 2012) 

The European Court of Human Rights upheld journalists’ right to protect their sources based on the freedom of expression in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court stressed the importance of weighing up the national interest against the need to protect journalistic sources, finding that an independent review process is of paramount importance in maintaining the right to freedom of expression under the Convention.

Read More
MichelleBennettDemocratic Freedoms, Privacy