SCEPTICS who claim the Human Rights Act is a charter for those trying to escape justice will not be surprised it was quoted during killer Jason Wade's perjury trial.

For two days, lawyers argued over whether the trial would infringe Wade's human rights.

Defence counsel claimed that the case against him violated his right to privacy, protected under the Act.

Letters from Wade, in which he boasted about "getting away with murder", were crucial prosecution evidence. The defence argued that prison staff who read the letters were invading Wade's privacy and had therefore breached the Act.

Fortunately the judge ruled that out. Not, however, because Wade had forfeited his right to privacy after being convicted for manslaughter. Rather because he had asked prison officers to read the letters and therefore waived his right to privacy.

That so much court time was devoted to debating the rights of a convicted killer is a worrying development.

Wade, it should be remembered, stabbed another man to death at his Tang Hall bungalow. His victim's right to life was brutally terminated.

Wade then claimed to have fooled the court into sparing him a conviction for murder. Had the letters containing this boast been ruled inadmissible in the perjury trial, he would have escaped justice for a second time.

Wade's trial was scheduled for the month when the Human Rights Act was activated. Whether that was just a happy coincidence for his lawyers, we cannot tell. But it is clear that their use of the Act contravened its spirit.

Last night members of the House of Lords expressed concern that the Act might allow speeding drivers to escape prosecution. Other dubious applications of the Act could soon clog up the courts and ruin the progress made to speed up justice.

The Human Rights Act is designed to protect the underprivileged and vulnerable, not help convicted killers and speeding motorists. We hope the courts can stem the tide of spurious claims with common sense rulings on test cases.