A man found not guilty of serious offences on the ground of insanity was nonetheless held indefinitely in ‘supervised custody’ in a maximum-security prison. The Committee found this was akin to preventive detention and arbitrary, resulting in serious psychological harm to Mr A.S.; and that he had been denied the ability to challenge the justification for his ongoing detention; denied reform and rehabilitation services; and contact with his family, in violation of articles 7, 9(1), 9(4), 10(3) and 17 of the ICCPR.

First Nations authors living on low-lying islands in the Torres Strait argued that the Australian Government failed to adopt infrastructure to protect their livelihoods and communities from the impacts of climate change, and failed to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the authors claimed that severe flooding and other changes in weather patterns destroyed graves and impacted their ability to conduct spiritual ceremonies. The Committee found violations of articles 17 and 27 of the ICCPR (interference with home and family; and minorities' cultural rights).

A 16-year-old boy, convicted of burglary and assault, was transferred to an adult prison after participating in a riot at a juvenile detention centre. He was subjected to solitary confinement, forced nakedness, forced anti-psychotic medication and 24-hour lighting. In view of Mr Brough’s additional vulnerability as an Indigenous Australian with a mild intellectual disability, the HRC found that he had been treated inhumanely and without the protection due to children, and should be compensated. He has not been compensated.

A young man from central Australia was arrested for offences committed while suffering psychosis. He was deemed unfit to stand trial due to his intellectual impairment, but the court ordered that he remain in custody. He was held indefinitely in maximum security prison for over 7 years – far longer than any sentence that might have been imposed had he been tried and convicted – and he was, at times, held in solitary confinement, subjected to involuntary treatment and given ‘very limited or no access’ to mental health and disability services or rehabilitation programs.

The Committee found that Australia did not provide Mr Doolan with the accommodation and supports he needed to stand trial, to exercise legal capacity and access justice (art. 12(2), 12(3) & 13(1). Mr Doolan was deprived of his right to a fair trial and of the equal protection and benefit of the law (art. 5(1) & (2). Mr Doolan’s indefinite detention was arbitrary and his treatment, including solitary confinement, involuntary treatment, violence from other prisoners, denial of habilitation, rehabilitation, mental health and support services, was degrading, in violation of article 15.

An Aboriginal man alleged that a sign at a football ground bearing the N-word breached the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee recommended the sign be removed. Australia rejected the Committee’s Views, but, after concerted lobbying by Mr Hagan, the sign was removed in 2007.

A young man was arrested for an assault committed while he was apparently suffering psychosis. He was deemed unfit to stand trial due to his intellectual impairment, but the court ordered that he remain in custody. He was held indefinitely in maximum security prison for over 9 years – far longer than any sentence that might have been imposed had he been tried and convicted – and he was, at times, held in solitary confinement, subjected to involuntary treatment and given ‘very limited or no access’ to mental health and disability services or rehabilitation programs.

The Committee found that Australia did not provide Mr Leo with the support he needed to stand trial, to exercise legal capacity and access justice (art. 12(2), 12(3) & 13(1). Mr Leo was deprived of his right to a fair trial and of the equal protection and benefit of the law (art. 5(1) & (2). Making public mental health services conditional on people with disabilities living in an institution is discriminatory (art. 5). Australia justified Mr Leo’s arbitrary detention on the basis of his disability (art. 14(1)(b)) and his treatment was inhuman and degrading (art. 15).

A court decided an intellectually impaired teen facing criminal charges was unfit to plead; he was imprisoned indefinitely without trial. A psychologist determined that with appropriate assistance the author was capable of standing trial, but the charges were dropped owing to insufficient evidence. After 10 years in prison, the man was released on restrictive conditions of unlimited duration and with no avenue of appeal to have them lifted.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found Mr Noble was denied a fair trial, equal protection under the law, and the support he required to exercise his legal capacity. The Committee found his disability was the ‘core cause’ of his deprivation of liberty, which it deemed arbitrary and a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.

In response, Australia admitted failures, but denied violating Mr Noble’s rights and declined to comply with any of the Committee’s recommendations.

A court deciding competing native title claims by 2 First Nations for the same land arbitrarily refused to allow one party to table evidence and refused its request for adjournment. That party – the authors of this communication – was unrepresented, ineligible for legal aid, and misunderstood the law and facts of the proceedings. The court recognised the native title of the competing mob, extinguishing the authors’ rights to their Country, without any avenue for appeal. The authors, represented by an elder named Ailsa Roy, claim that losing their traditional lands means “the dissolution of their culture” and their destruction as a people.

The UN Human Rights Committee found violations of their rights to equality before the law and fair trial (art 14(1)); of their right to an effective remedy (art 2(3)) and of their cultural rights as a minority (art 27) read in the light of their right to self-determination (art 1) and of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Committee recommended, inter alia, a re-examination of the authors’ native title claim, ensuring their effective participation.