The Federal Court dismissed an application made by Save the Children Australia for habeas corpus of 34 women and children held in camps in North-East Syria finding that the Minister for Home Affairs and the Commonwealth of Australia did not have control over their detainment. However, the Court in a separate decision made no order as to costs, in an important decision on costs in public interest litigation.
Read MoreChild Rights
- Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Peoples' Rights
- Business & Human Rights
- Child Rights
- Counter-terrorism
- Death Penalty
- Democratic Freedoms
- Disability & Mental Health
- Discrimination & Equality
- Environmental And Climate Justice
- Foreign Policy
- Health
- Housing
- Human Rights Act
- Human Rights Law & Institutions
- LGBTI Rights
- Prisoner Rights
- Privacy
- Refugee & Asylum Seeker Rights
- United Nations
MB (a pseudonym) v Children’s Court of Victoria & Anor [2023] VSC 666
This case raises important human rights considerations of privacy and the State acting in the best interests of the child, in relation to the State’s retention of a child’s DNA information. Without the Victorian Charter, these fundamental considerations would not have been taken into account.
Read More
ZH (Tanzania) FC (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 (1 February 2011)
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has held that the 'best interests of the child' should be the first consideration where children are affected by the decision to remove or deport one or both of their parents. While the best interests of the child can be cumulatively outweighed by other factors in determining proportionality, no consideration is inherently more significant than the best interests of the child.
Read MoreSuppiah & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2 (Admin) (11 January 2011)
The High Court of England and Wales decided that two families who had sought asylum in the United Kingdom were detained unlawfully by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) because the Defendant failed to have regard to its duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Read MoreA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8 (26 November 2009)
The difficulty in determining age has become prominent as a consequence of the increased movement of children around the world, and specifically the increased migration of unaccompanied young people. It is an issue of particular significance, for a number of reasons. States often have – or at least, ought to have – different policies and procedures in place in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers who are children. These may relate, for example, to the provision of guardianship, the provision of legal aid, conditions of any ‘detention’, the substantive consideration of whether the asylum seeker satisfies the requisite test (ie the refugee definition), or access to particular social entitlements (housing, welfare, education etc).
Read MoreAS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1118 (15 October 2008)
The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently allowed an appeal against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal regarding the deportation of AS, a Pakistani national. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in two respects: first, in finding that deportation would not interfere with AS’ right to respect for his private and family life (under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights), and second, in its assessment of proportionality.
Read MoreD and E v Australia, HRC, Communication No 1050/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002 (25 July 2006)
The UN Human Rights Committee (‘the Committee’) recently handed down its latest in a string of decisions concerning Australia’s policy of mandatory immigration detention. The authors of the complaint were two Iranian nationals who, together with their two children, arrived in Australiaby boat in November 2000. Pursuant to Australia’s policy, the four were held in immigration detention for a total of three years and two months. During their period of mandatory detention, the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) effectively precluded judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, while their applications for asylum were rejected. The four were ultimately granted Global Special Humanitarian visas on 13 March 2006.
Read More