Australia and Oceania

This Act overturned Division 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which criminalised obtaining, performing, or otherwise assisting an abortion. Abortion is now legal in New South Wales until 22 weeks of pregnancy. To procure an abortion after 22 weeks, the procedure must be performed in a hospital by a specialist practitioner in consultation with a second practitioner. Medical providers who have conscientious objections to abortion must provide patients with information about where they can receive an abortion. 

The Abortion Law Reform Act allows a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy (perform an abortion) on a woman who is not more than 24 weeks pregnant. After 24 weeks, an abortion may still be performed if the medical practitioner believes it is appropriate in all the circumstances, and has consulted at least one other registered medical practitioner who reasonably agrees.  It also permits the supply or administration of drugs to perform and abortion by a pharmacist or registered nurse in similar situations.

Appellant Ah-Chong was convicted of assault with intent to commit sexual violation by rape.  As a defense, Ah-Chong claimed that the victim consented to the sexual activity.  The trial judge gave the jury instructions that they had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had no reasonable grounds to believe that consent existed.  The appellant argued that the jury instructions were wrong, claiming that there were two separate mens rea elements: one for the assault and one for intention to rape.

This is an amending Act to the Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria).

The plaintiff worked at a motel. She alleged that her manager made offensive comments to her and spread rumors about her in the community. The court found that the plaintiff suffered a detriment in the course of her employment under the Human Rights Act.

Section 22A, Part 2A of the Act provides that a person sexually harasses another person if “the person makes an unwelcome sexual advance, or an unwelcome request for sexual favours, to the other person, or the person engages in other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the other person, in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.”  Part 2A sets out various prohibitions against the harassment of employees, commission agents, contract worke

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 makes it unlawful to directly or indirectly discriminate on the basis of certain grounds (‘attributes’), including sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, gender, gender identity, sex characteristics, marital status, relationship status, pregnancy, breastfeeding, parental status, family responsibilities, irrelevant medical record, association with a person who has, or is believed to have, any of these attributes.

The Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination in certain settings on the grounds of any designated attribute, including sex, sexuality, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, breastfeeding, gender identity, and sex characteristics. The settings in which discrimination based on a designated attribute is prohibited include: education, work, accommodation, provision of goods, services and facilities, clubs, and insurance, and superannuation.

The appellants, both homosexual male citizens of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia and applied for protection visas. To be recognized as refugees, the appellants had to show that they had a well-founded fear of being persecuted due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The appellants argued that they belonged to a “particular social group” that was subject to discrimination and harm in Bangladesh by virtue of their homosexuality.

This case is an appeal by the Attorney-General against a sentence imposed by the High Court for two convictions of defilement of a 13-year-old girl. The respondent was convicted on two counts of defilement and sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment, despite the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. The Attorney-General appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal held that sentencing for defilement should begin with a minimum of five years’ imprisonment, subject to adjustments for aggravating and mitigating factors.