On 1 February 2013, the Federal Magistrates Court delivered Innes v Rail Corporation of NSW (No 2) [2013] FMCA 36 (1 February 2013).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2013/36.html
The Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Commissioner successfully sued the Rail Corporation of NSW on the grounds that it failed to provide audible train announcements for the hearing impaired.
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY IN 2002, some parts of the Civil LIability Act 2002 (NSW) are taken to have commenced.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/
ON 1 MARCH 1993, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) commenced.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 6 May 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered Department of Health & Community Services v JWB & SMB (“Marion’s Case”) [1992] HCA 15; (1992) 175 CLR 218 (6 May 1992).
“Children – Intellectual disability – Sterilization – Power of parents to consent – Assault – Parens patriae jurisdiction of court – Criminal Code Act 1983 (N.T.), ss 1, 26, 181, 187 188.
Family Law (Cth) – Family Court – Jurisdiction – Welfare – Parens patriae – Intellectually disabled child – Sterilization – Power of Court to authorize operation – Effect of authorization on criminal law – Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss. 63, 64, 64E – Criminal Code Act 1983 (N.T.), ss 1, 26, 181, 187, 188.”
The court held that the parents of a 14 year old mentally retarded girl from the Northern Territory could not lawfully authorize a sterilization procedure on their child without an order of a court.
The court held that the Family Court of Australia has the jurisdiction to authorize the carrying out of a sterilization procedure but could not approve consent being given to the parents unless the court authorizes the procedure.
Whilst parents or guardians may authorize or consent to the carrying out of a therapeutic treatment of their child, they have no such power regarding non-therapeutic treatment.
Sterilization of an intellectuallly disabled minor falls outside of the ordinary scope of parenal powers if the procedure is not obviously necessary.
Children have the right to personal integrity under domestic and international law. Procedures, such as sterilization, are “invasive, irreversible and major surgery”. It is up to the court, not the parents or guardians, to decide the appropriate circumstances that are in the best interests of the child.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/15.html
1300 00 2088
ON 31 MARCH 1976, the Supreme Court of New Jersey permitted the life support system of the permanently comatose Karen Ann Quinlan to be turned off to allow her to die a natural death without any civil or criminal liability on her guardian or treatment providers: see IN THE MATTER OF KAREN QUINLAN, AN ALLEGED INCOMPETENT Supreme Court of New Jersey 70 N.J. 10; 355 A.2d 647; 1976 N.J. LEXIS 181; 79 A.L.R.3d 205
Click to access In_Re_Quinlan.pdf
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY IN 1976, the Supreme Court of New Jersey delivered IN THE MATTER OF KAREN QUINLAN, AN ALLEGED INCOMPETENT 70 N.J. 10; 355 A.2d 647; 1976 N.J. LEXIS 181; 79 A.L.R.3d 205. The guardian, hospital and treatment providers of Karen Ann Quinlan were permitted to turn off her life support system as she was in a persistent vegetative state.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 1927, the US Supreme Court delivered Buck v Bell 274 US 200 (1927).
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality a law of the State of Virginia which allowed the sterilisation of “feeble minded” inmates of institutions with “hereditary insanity or imbecility”.
Click to access Buck%20v.%20Bell_%20Supreme%20Court%20Opinion.pdf
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 