Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Victoria)
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Victoria)
Overview
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Victoria) ("the Charter") is a human rights statute enacted by the Victorian Parliament. It sets out the basic rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of all people in Victoria and requires public authorities to act compatibly with human rights.
The Charter:
Protects civil and political rights such as freedom of expression, right to a fair trial, privacy, and equality.
Requires public authorities to act consistently with human rights.
Allows courts and tribunals to interpret laws in a way compatible with human rights where possible.
Does not create a direct cause of action for breach of human rights but allows courts to issue declarations of inconsistent interpretation.
Empowers the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to promote and protect human rights.
Key Rights Protected by the Charter
Some of the important rights under the Charter include:
Right to life (Section 9)
Protection from torture and cruel treatment (Section 10)
Right to privacy and reputation (Section 13)
Freedom of expression (Section 15)
Right to a fair hearing (Section 24)
Freedom of religion (Section 14)
Right to equality before the law (Section 8)
How the Charter Works
Interpretation of Legislation: Courts and tribunals must interpret Victorian laws to be consistent with human rights “so far as it is possible to do so” (Section 32).
Statements of Compatibility: Before introducing a bill, ministers must prepare a statement about whether the bill is compatible with human rights (Section 28).
Inconsistent Interpretation Declaration: If a court finds a law cannot be interpreted consistently with human rights, it can issue a “declaration of inconsistent interpretation” (Section 36).
Application to Public Authorities: Public authorities must act in ways compatible with human rights, but private conduct is generally not covered.
Important Case Laws Related to the Victorian Charter
1. Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1
Facts:
This landmark High Court case involved Ms. Momcilovic who was convicted under a law that was arguably inconsistent with the Charter’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Issue:
Whether courts must interpret legislation in a way consistent with the Charter and the limits of that obligation.
Held:
The High Court confirmed that courts must interpret laws consistently with the Charter “so far as it is possible.”
However, if a law is unambiguous and inconsistent with a Charter right, the court must apply the law as written.
The Charter does not override clear legislation but influences statutory interpretation.
Significance:
This case clarified the scope of the interpretive obligation under Section 32 of the Charter and limits of judicial power. It showed the Charter operates within the framework of parliamentary sovereignty.
2. Director of Housing v Sudi (2012) VCAT 2136
Facts:
A tenant challenged a decision by the Director of Housing to evict on grounds that the eviction violated the tenant’s rights under the Charter.
Issue:
Whether the eviction was compatible with the tenant’s right to privacy and family life under Section 13 of the Charter.
Held:
VCAT considered the tenant’s human rights and concluded that the eviction could proceed but the decision-maker must consider human rights implications in decisions affecting individuals.
Significance:
Shows how the Charter applies to administrative decisions by public authorities and requires them to consider human rights.
3. Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (2004) 221 CLR 309
Note: Although this case predates the Charter, it is often referred to in Charter cases regarding statutory interpretation and compatibility with human rights.
Facts:
Involved statutory interpretation where rights and freedoms were considered in the application of industrial law.
Held:
The High Court emphasized that rights must be considered when interpreting legislation.
Significance:
Sets interpretative principles later echoed in Charter jurisprudence about considering human rights in statutory interpretation.
4. R v Davidson (2015) VSC 530
Facts:
The accused challenged evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights, specifically the right to a fair hearing (Section 24).
Issue:
Whether evidence should be excluded because it was obtained unlawfully and infringed the Charter.
Held:
The court excluded the evidence, holding that the right to a fair hearing was paramount and that unlawfully obtained evidence could undermine this right.
Significance:
Demonstrates how the Charter influences procedural fairness in criminal proceedings and the admissibility of evidence.
5. Casta v Chief Commissioner of Police (2011) VCAT 1605
Facts:
The applicant argued that police actions breached their right to freedom of expression under Section 15 of the Charter.
Issue:
Whether restrictions placed by police on the applicant’s protest activity were compatible with the Charter.
Held:
VCAT found the restrictions unjustified and incompatible with the Charter’s protection of free expression.
Significance:
Highlights the application of the Charter in balancing public order and individual freedoms.
Summary
The Victorian Charter enshrines basic human rights and guides public authorities in decision-making.
Courts interpret laws to be compatible with the Charter as far as possible, but clear laws inconsistent with the Charter must be applied.
The Charter influences a wide range of areas including criminal law, administrative decisions, and civil liberties.
The listed cases highlight judicial approaches to interpreting laws in light of human rights, and the protection of rights in legal and administrative processes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments