Milieudefensie has announced that it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. On 29 August , the Coroner handed down her findings in the inquest into the death of AS. Content Warning: This case note discusses suicide, self-harm and gender identity discrimination. Readers may find it distressing. The issue of criminal procedure concerned a meeting between the complainant, the judge, and counsel for both the prosecution and the accused the accused being the respondent to this appeal on the day before the judge presided over a special hearing to take the evidence of the complainant.
The Victorian County Court has recognised invasion of privacy as an actionable right under Australian common law which allowed the plaintiff to obtain relief for harm caused by information disclosed but not otherwise captured by alternate causes of action. 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 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.
The Federal Court of Australia the Court has upheld a subpoena to produce documents issued against three civil society organisations. 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 ACT HRA in circumstances where they were on remand and imprisoned with people who had been convicted. The 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. On 30 November , 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 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. 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 of the Online Safety Act.
