This thesis investigates the extent to which human rights law may be used to challenge the forced eviction of people who live in public space under public space laws. The specific case study is the operation of Darwin City Council By-law 103, which bans camping, or adults sleeping in a public place between sunset and sunrise. The by-law is used to criminalise or forcibly evict people who live in public space in Darwin in the Northern Territory. Darwin has the highest proportionate number of homeless people of any capital city in Australia. Indigenous people are significantly over-represented. The thesis charts recent legislative changes across Australia to demonstrate that public space laws, such as Darwin City Council By-law 103, continue to be popular public policy responses to law and order concerns. This legal regulation is being undertaken without ensuring compliance with international human rights standards. There has been a marked increase in Australia of the use of available domestic and international human rights tools to raise concerns about the enforcement of these laws against people living in public space. Through a review of secondary sources, the thesis establishes that some 15 human rights have been identified as potentially engaged by such enforcement but Australian jurisprudence has yet to emerge. The thesis selects the human right to privacy, family and home for detailed analysis. It interrogates available evidence from Darwin, international and comparative jurisprudence and secondary sources to determine whether the forced eviction of people living in public space under Darwin City Council By-law 103 may be found to violate the right to respect for privacy, family and home in a particular case. The study aims to make a specific contribution to growing endeavours to promote the human rights of people who are homeless, including people who live in public space. Its detailed analysis is designed to support a human rights litigation strategy at both domestic and international level, in order to challenge the extent to which people living in public space are subjected to criminalisation and forced eviction when they have nowhere else to live.

This thesis investigates the extent to which human rights law may be used to challenge the forced eviction of people who live in public space under public space laws. The specific case study is the operation of Darwin City Council By-law 103, which bans camping, or adults sleeping in a public place between sunset and sunrise. The by-law is used to criminalise or forcibly evict people who live in public space in Darwin in the Northern Territory. Darwin has the highest proportionate number of homeless people of any capital city in Australia. Indigenous people are significantly over-represented. The thesis charts recent legislative changes across Australia to demonstrate that public space laws, such as Darwin City Council By-law 103, continue to be popular public policy responses to law and order concerns. This legal regulation is being undertaken without ensuring compliance with international human rights standards. There has been a marked increase in Australia of the use of available domestic and international human rights tools to raise concerns about the enforcement of these laws against people living in public space. Through a review of secondary sources, the thesis establishes that some 15 human rights have been identified as potentially engaged by such enforcement but Australian jurisprudence has yet to emerge. The thesis selects the human right to privacy, family and home for detailed analysis. It interrogates available evidence from Darwin, international and comparative jurisprudence and secondary sources to determine whether the forced eviction of people living in public space under Darwin City Council By-law 103 may be found to violate the right to respect for privacy, family and home in a particular case. The study aims to make a specific contribution to growing endeavours to promote the human rights of people who are homeless, including people who live in public space. Its detailed analysis is designed to support a human rights litigation strategy at both domestic and international level, in order to challenge the extent to which people living in public space are subjected to criminalisation and forced eviction when they have nowhere else to live.