The world of politics works in the same way as dog years -- a we ek may be a long time, but six months is something of an eternity.

It is hard to believe that it is only six months since the most talked about, dreaded and welcomed Act in memory exploded into the courts and onto the front pages.The Human Rights Act 1998, which implemented the European Convention on Human Rights and enshrined human rights such as the right to life and the right to a fair trial, came into force in England and Wales on 2 October 2000 and was immediately engulfed in media controversy.The Act -- also known as 'The Complainers Charter' (Daily Mail), 'the most important piece of legislation since the Magna Carta' (Jack Straw) and 'the start of a glorious era in British justice' (a particularly effusive Independent editorial) -- was that rarest of things: a piece of legislation which caught the public's imagination as much as that of the lawyers.Apocalyptic tabloids forecast a legal system brought to its knees, courts clogged up with chancers using the Act to wriggle out of trouble, and a compensation culture spiralling out of control.Predictions were rife that article 10 of the convention -- the right to freedom of expression -- would be used to challenge school uniform rules and that article 8 -- the right to family life -- would mean that prisoners were allowed conjugal visits and clergy would be forced to perform same-sex marriages.However, six months on, and perhaps unsurprisingly, these predictions have been proved on the whole to be false.'Firstly, and most importantly, there has not been an explosion of litigation as we all feared,' says Stephen Grosz, partner in the public law and litigation department at London-based human rights specialists Bindman & Partners.This assessment seems to be a common one.

Keir Starmer, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and chairman of the human rights research unit at King's College London, says: 'This widespread fear that the Act would clog up courts and delay the administration of justice has proved to be unfounded.

Human rights points have been taken seriously in the courts, and as a result there have been few of them.'Figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department seem to support that view: the number of cases received in the Court of Appeal's criminal division actually fell from 2,643 between 2 October 1999 and 31 January 2000 to 2,491 in the same period a year later.

Of these 2,491 cases, only 277 contained human rights points -- likewise, in the three months following implementation, only 168 cases heard in the Crown Court featured human rights points, working out at less than 0.5% of all cases heard.The tabloid rhetoric has proved to be unhelpful, according to Louise Christian, partner in the civil litigation department at London human rights firm Christian Fisher.

'This media debate has distorted the issue, and obscured the fact that the UK is miles behind the rest of Europe in terms of human rights considerations,' she says.

'The Act is actually an old-fashioned law in many countries, and hasn't worked great miracles or caused huge detriment as the very polarised debate in the UK suggests.'Daniel Machover, partner and specialist in prisoners' rights at London firm Hickman & Rose, agrees that the prophecies of doom were never really to be taken seriously.

'The predicted rush of cases was always an exaggeration,' he explains.

'People have had their rights enshrined in the Act across Europe for years, and there've been no earthquakes there, no sudden explosion of silly claims.'Mr Machover awaits judgment on a potentially landmark case involving the d isenfranchisement of prisoners.

Although he admits that the case is a difficult issue, he maintains that denying prisoners their voting rights is incompatible with the right to vote as protected by the Act.

'Removal of the vote as a form of punishment does not work logically, particularly for discretionary lifers once they have served their tariff as prescribed by the judge,' he says.'We are looking for a declaration that section 3 of the Representation of the People Act is incompatible with a convention right.'Prisoners' rights appear to be a fertile area for human rights points, and Hickman & Rose has two other test cases coming to court in May: the first regarding the right to family life, where the prison service wants to separate a mother from her young child in prison; and the second claiming that when held in custody in a police station, being denied the right to use a telephone in private and being forced to see a solicitor in a police cell are both breaches of the right to a fair trial under article six.Another equally active area is immigration and asylum work.

Ruth Bundey, immigration and crime partner at Harrison Bundey & Co in Leeds, says: 'Asylum is where it's really biting at the moment.

Because asylum issues are meant to be processed as quickly as possible, human rights arguments are really coming to the fore; and, of course, all cases dealt with before 2 October now have a second bite because human rights arguments can be advanced on appeal.'Ms Christian, while saying that in general the Act 'hasn't had a groundbreaking effect', agrees that 'where it has had an impact is in smaller cases, such as immigration appeals.

It has opened up new avenues -- for example, if a deportation breaks up a family, this could be in breach of the right to family life.

Or if a refugee's plight falls outside the definitions of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees, it could still be argued as inhuman and degrading treatment'.From one extreme to another.

One of the most high-profile cases coming to court under the Act is Michael Douglas's and Catherine Zeta Jones's battle against Hello! magazine for its publication of unauthorised photographs taken at their wedding.

One of their claims was that this was an invasion of their privacy, despite their exclusive sale of the photographic rights to a rival magazine.When this case comes to court later this year, it is likely to carve out a de facto privacy law under the Act -- not, according to Ms Christian, necessarily a good thing.

'People in the media are getting very excited over the new privacy ruling, but this could turn out to be a very bad thing for freedom of expression.

Yes, it will protect Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas, but it could also mean that papers are unable to expose some Cabinet minister accused of sleaze.'This privacy judgment and its consequences are still unknown quantities, and this is essentially the crux of the matter.

'An Act like this, which is a real constitutional shift of power to the courts, will take a lot longer than six months to bed down,' says Mr Starmer.'Judges at the moment are still a little cautious about applying the Act too vigorously, and some doubt their ability to call into question legislation that they're unfamiliar with.

However, this will change over time as their understanding grows.' He estimates that it will take 'about five years' for the courts to get 'a real feel for the Act'.A good example of its potential impact came just before Christmas, when the High Court ruled that the current system of decidi ng planning appeals breaches the right to a fair trial because the secretary of state has the final say -- essentially ruling on his own policy (see [2001] Gazette, 18 January, 30).Perhaps the real impact of the Act will come not so much in the legislation it does or does not produce, but in the manner that it is delivered.

'The language of decision-making has changed,' says Mr Grosz.

'The judges are now having to detail the reasons behind their decisions more clearly.' Ms Bundey agrees: 'There is already a greater onus on the courts to deliver clearer and fuller reasons behind their thinking.'Whatever happens in the next five years, the Act seems to have had a painless birth, with the courts favouring a 'softly softly' approach.

As for not being able to please all the people all the time, an Act that pleases both asylum seekers and Catherine Zeta Jones must be doing something right.