Strategic litigation, searchable.

Toomelah Justice Reinvestment Project Evaluation (2022)

Justice reinvestment in remote Aboriginal community

29 F.4th 763

The case involved derivative family members granted asylum in the United States.

CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA (no. 55798/16)

Whether the applicants' removal from North Macedonia constituted a collective expulsion prohibited by the Convention and whether they had an effective remedy to challenge that measure.

CASE OF O.M. AND D.S. v. UKRAINE (no. 18603/12)

Whether the applicants' removal to Kyrgyzstan would breach the prohibition of torture and whether the authorities unlawfully hindered their right to bring an individual application.

OICS Review of Banksia Hill Detention Centre

Multiple inspections found systemic failures: high isolation use, self-harm, staff shortages. Children transferred to adult facility (Casuarina Unit 18) as emergency.

Olabud Doogethu Justice Reinvestment (Halls Creek, WA)

Justice reinvestment in remote WA Aboriginal community

CASE OF A.I. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 39028/17)

Whether Poland fulfilled its obligation to comply with final judgments by taking measures to avoid further violations and by paying the amounts awarded in the judgment.

CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 42907/17)

Whether the applicants' removal to Belarus would expose them to treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture, and whether the removal constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in breach of the Protocol.

WA Unit 18 Casuarina Inquiry 2022

Custody Notification Service Evaluation (ALS NSW 2022)

Evaluating the only proven RCIADIC recommendation

CASE OF T.Z. AND OTHERS v. POLAND (no. 41764/17)

Whether Poland has taken effective measures to prevent further violations of the applicants' rights following the Court's earlier finding of a violation.

NSW Inspector of Custodial Services Report on Strip Searching Children (2022)

Routine strip searching of children in detention

Throughcare Evaluation — Reintegration After Detention (2022)

Post-detention support and reintegration

CASE OF H.F. AND OTHERS v. FRANCE (no. 24384/19)

Whether the French authorities’ refusal to allow the applicants, who are French nationals, to return to France violated their right not to be expelled from their own country under Article 3 of Protocol No. 4.

Baker v The Queen (2022) NTCCA

Cultural considerations in youth sentencing

CASE OF S.H. v. MALTA (no. 37241/21)

Whether the applicant's proposed expulsion to Bangladesh would expose him to a real risk of torture and deprive him of an effective remedy, contrary to the prohibition of torture and the right to an effective remedy.

CASE OF W.A. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (no. 64050/16)

Whether the applicants' expulsion to Serbia would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.

CASE OF K.I. v. FRANCE (no. 5560/19)

Whether the applicant’s removal to Russia would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture.

East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Merrick Garland

Challenge to the Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications rule

Huisha-Huisha v. Gaynor

Asylum-seeking families who fled to the United States were at stake, with their right to seek asylum in the US being challenged.