Human Rights Case Summaries

ZZ v Secretary, Department of Justice [2013] VSC 267 (22 May 2013)

The Victorian Supreme Court has upheld the appeals of a man who was refused an assessment notice and an accreditation that he needed to work as a bus driver. The court found that in assessing whether the man was “a risk” to children, rather than an “unjustifiable risk”, the VCAT had misapplied the statutory test. Justice Bell also found that VCAT failed to consider, among other things, the relevance of the applicant’s right to work in weighing up whether it was in the public interest for him to be given the required clearances.

Mokbel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 118 (17 May 2013)

The Victorian Court of Appeal has refused Antonios Sajih (Tony) Mokbel leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence relating to three serious drug offences. The Court upheld the decision at first instance that complaints about the conduct of Australian authorities (who accepted Mr Mokbel’s extradition whilst he had an application to the European Court of Human Rights on foot) fell far short of justifying a permanent stay of his criminal charges.

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20 (8 May 2013)

The High Court of Australia has provided much needed clarity on the question of when an omission to do an act can constitute an element of the Commonwealth offence of obtaining a financial advantage.

R v Chaouk [2013] VSCA 99 (2 May 2013)

The Victorian Court of Appeal has unanimously confirmed that a court can stay a criminal trial where the absence of an instructing solicitor on a day to day basis throughout the trial is likely to result in an unfair trial. The decision upholds the first instance finding by Justice Lasry in R v Chaouk [2013] VSC 48 (15 February 2013).

Esther Kiobel, Individually and on behalf of her late husband Dr. Barinem Kiobel, et al, Petitioners. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al., 569 US (2013) (17 April 2013) 

The United States Supreme Court has found that the Alien Tort Statute, used for decades by survivors of human rights abuses to seek redress, has no application to violations committed in other countries unless there is a strong connection with the US. The Court expanded the presumption against extraterritorial application to limit the scope of the Statute. The Justices of the Court agreed that mere presence of a corporation in the US would not of itself demonstrate a strong enough link to bring alleged extraterritorial human rights violations within the Statute’s ambit. However, the Court declined to address the broader question of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute.

Victoria Police Toll Enforcement v Taha; State of Victoria v Brookes [2013] VSCA 37

The Court of Appeal held that there is a duty on Magistrates to inquire into whether infringement offenders have disabilities such as mental illness or intellectual disability, or other special circumstances, before making an imprisonment order in respect of unpaid fines. This duty is a consequence of a proper construction of the relevant statutory provision, section 160 of the Infringements Act 2006 Vic. This construction is supported by section 32 of the Charter, as it is more compatible with the rights to equality, liberty and a fair hearing.

Monis v The Queen;  Droudis v The Queen [2013] HCA 4 (27 February 2013)

The High Court of Australia has split 3:3 on whether a provision of the Criminal Code (Cth) making it an offence for a person to use a postal or similar service in an offensive way is invalid as an impermissible burden on the freedom of communication about government or political matters implied in the Australian Constitution (“implied freedom”). French CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ separately answered the question in the affirmative, while Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ jointly answered in the negative. Pursuant to section 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which deals with equally divided opinions of the Court, the decision appealed from — that of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal that the provision is valid — was affirmed.

Van Colle v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR, Application No 7678/09 (13 November 2012)

This decision of the European Court of Human Rights considered the scope of a state's obligation to protect life, which is contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Court re-stated that authorities have a positive obligation to take action where they know, or ought to know, that there is a “real and immediate risk” to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of another. However, in this case, the Court found that the circumstances did not establish such an obligation.

Irene Wilson v The United Kingdom [2012] ECHR, Application no. 10601/09 (23 October 2012) 

The European Court of Human Rights found that the Northern Ireland authorities had not failed in their duty to respond to domestic violence perpetrated against the applicant, Ms Irene Wilson, and her complaint was deemed inadmissible.

Nada v Switzerland [2012] ECHR 1691 (12 September 2012) 

This is a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights regarding how states should approach divergent international law obligations.

Russell v Pangallo [2012] ACTMC 4 (24 August 2012) 

In the ACT Magistrates Court, a Magistrate held that a six year delay between the filing of a summons for a drink driving offence and the first court date for that offence did not constitute unreasonable delay giving rise to a breach of the ACT Human Rights Act 2004.

R v Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44 (3 August 2012) Summary

The full bench of Canada's Supreme Court has upheld a trial judge's decision to permanently stay proceedings against a prisoner who was found guilty of threatening to rape a prison guard's wife and children. Because the prisoner was assaulted during the incident, his rights were found to be infringed under the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a discretionary remedy available under section 24(1) was awarded on this basis.

RT (Zimbabwe) & Ors (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Appellant); KM (Zimbabwe) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 38 (25 July 2012)

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom considered whether an individual who has no political views, and therefore does not support the persecutory regime in his or her home country, is entitled to a claim for asylum where the alternative is to lie and feign loyalty to that regime in order to avoid persecution.

R v Wayne Michael Connors [2012] ACTSC 80 (28 May 2012) 

Chief Justice Higgins of the ACT Supreme Court has rejected claims made by Mr Connors that a bail condition requiring he undergo urinalysis (urine testing) to enforce abstinence from illicit drugs was beyond the powers conferred by section 25 of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT). The court confirmed that the bail conditions did not breach Mr Connors’ right to privacy under section 12 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

Mattu v University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 641 (18 May 2012) 

The England and Wales Court of Appeal has found that a disciplinary process which resulted in the dismissal of an employee did not engage that employee’s civil rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. Thus, the employer was not bound by the obligations to provide a fair hearing under the Convention.

Dawas v Denmark, UN Doc CERD/C/80/D/46/2009 (2 April 2012) 

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was asked to consider whether the Applicants’ rights under articles 2 (prevention of racial discrimination) and 6 (effective preventions and remedies) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had been breached by Denmark’s failure to investigate the racist character of an attack on the Applicants and to prosecute the attackers on the basis that their alleged crimes had a racist character. The Committee held that various deficiencies in Denmark’s investigation of the attack and its prosecution of the attackers gave rise to contraventions of articles 2 and 6.

R v Dennis Michael Nona [2012] ACTSC 41 (23 March 2012)

In R v Nona the ACT Supreme Court considered the right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay in the context of whether or not to stay criminal proceedings. The key issues related to a breach of a statutory human right and the appropriate remedy for that breach. While the court found that the right to a trial without unreasonable delay had been breached, it considered that a declaration would be an appropriate remedy rather than a permanent stay. This decision is important because it discusses the relevance of section 30 (interpretation of laws and human rights) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) when interpreting ACT legislation, and the common law and statutory principles of undue delay.

Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 (22 March 2012)

The Supreme Court of Canada has delivered a key decision clarifying the standard of review to be applied in considering whether administrative decision-makers have exercised their discretion compatibly with the Canadian Charter. The Court held that, rather than using the test in R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103, which is used to determine whether legislation is Charter compatible, a more flexible reasonableness test should be used, drawing on administrative law concepts and providing greater deference to administrative decision-makers.

Slaveski v The Queen (on the application of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria) [2012] VSCA 48 (20 March 2012)

The applicant, Mr Slaveski, appealed against conviction and sentence for contempt of court.The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission intervened in the proceeding regarding the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) to the Supreme Court. The Commission’s submissions concerned, among other things, whether the trial judge erred in not granting an adjournment to Mr Slaveski in circumstances where his lawyers had withdrawn and he alleged that evidence relevant to his trial had been tampered with.

Slaveski v Smith & Anor [2012] VSCA 25 (29 February 2012)

This decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal clarifies the content of aspects of the right to a fair hearing (section 24) and rights in criminal proceedings (section 25) in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The decision also indicates the approach the Court is taking to the interpretation provision (section 32) after the High Court decision in Momcilovic.

R v Fleischman, 2012 ONCJ 120 (24 February 2012) 

This was a Canadian case in the provincial division of the Ontario court system. The applicant was charged with impaired driving and driving with greater than 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood (“over 80”). He brought an application pursuant to sections 7, 11(d) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the proceedings against him to be conditionally stayed until state-funded counsel was provided for his trial. The judge found that counsel was essential to the applicant’s right to a fair trial and that the applicant was unable to afford to obtain counsel, and on that basis stayed the proceedings until state funding could be provided.

Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom – 26766/05 [2011] ECHR 2127 (15 December 2011)

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently considered the admissibility of statements made by an absent witness and the application of the 'sole or decisive test' in the context of the right to a fair trial. It held by majority that convictions based solely or decisively on such statements will not automatically constitute a breach of the right to a fair trial contained in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has clarified the scope of a State party’s obligation to investigate a death in circumstances involving a potential breach of the right to life.

In Pearson v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 2319, the Court clarified that, where government employees or agents are implicated in a death, the State is bound to adequately investigate the death to establish the relevant facts and to hold persons accountable, as appropriate. Those obligations may be met by, or shared between, several different processes and authorities. There is no requirement for a single body, such as a coroner’s court, to deal with all aspects of an investigation.