What the Act says
This right means that governments and officials cannot arbitrarily take action that results in loss of life.
This right also includes an obligation on governments to take steps to protect lives, such as addressing threats to life like malnutrition and infant mortality.
This right is based on Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia ratified in 1980. Under international law, the right to life cannot be suspended, even in emergencies.
Scope of the right
The right to life may be relevant in situations such as the:
- use of force by public authorities
- delivery of medical treatment
- investigation into deaths involving public entities, such as deaths in custody.
The right imposes 2 types of duties on public entities:
- Negative duty: Public entities must not arbitrarily take someone’s life.
- Positive duty: Public entities must take reasonable steps to protect people from real and immediate risks to life.
Negative duties
Public entities must not arbitrarily or intentionally deprive someone of life. The use of force by government officials must be:
- absolutely necessary, and
- strictly proportionate to achieving a permitted purpose.
For example, this might occur when the police must use lethal force to protect the lives of other people in imminent danger.
Unlawful or arbitrary taking of life is never allowed.
Positive duties
Public entities also have a duty to take positive steps to protect the right to life. For example, government agencies like the Queensland Police Service must consider the right to life in their actions and decision-making. This may include safeguarding individuals from known risks to their lives.
Abortion
Section 106 of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that the Act does not affect laws on abortion.
Case examples
Impacts on right to life from climate change
The Land Court of Queensland held that, because of its contribution to climate change, allowing a coal mine development to proceed would limit the right to life of people in Queensland (in addition to other human rights). Given the importance of the right to life, and the significant impact that the project would have on emissions contributing to climate change, the Land Court held that the threat to life caused by the mine could not be justified. The Court recommended refusing applications for a mining lease and environmental authority that were needed to construct it.
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 (25 November 2022)
In another case considering objections to a mining lease, the Land Court held that the right to life and right to protection of children would be limited by greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed mine. The Court recommended that the Minister not approve the mining lease application unless the applicants showed real and significant progress towards mitigating their greenhouse gas emissions.
Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5 (20 March 2025)
Police investigation of deaths in custody must be independent
A Queensland police unit investigating the death of a woman in custody had also been involved in investigating and prosecuting her at the time of her death. The Coroner held that the right to life required an independent and impartial investigation into the death, and directed that the investigation be finalised by a different police unit.
Inquest into the death of Selesa Tafaifa, Ruling in relation to the conduct of the Police Coronial Investigation (13 June 2022)
Use of force by police
Police attended the deceased’s residence in Queensland following an emergency call out for domestic violence and threatening behaviour. The deceased confronted the police with knives, and he was shot and killed.
The Coroner accepted that the right to life required police officers involved in high-risk confrontations to plan responses using the minimum amount of force necessary, to gather all relevant information, and to consider all available alternative options.
Inquest into the death of Damon Paul William Savage, Findings (4 November 2024)
Case examples from other jurisdictions
Responsibility to protect life (United Kingdom)
A woman at high risk of suicide was granted home leave from hospital against her parents’ wishes. During her leave, she took her own life. The UK Supreme Court found the hospital had breached its duty to take reasonable steps to protect her from the real and immediate risk of suicide, violating her right to life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 (8 February 2012)
This information is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice.