Much has been written about how the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which comes into effect on 2 October this year, will impact on discrete practice areas.

But it is also likely to have a notable impact on disabled people -- an important and diverse client group.The Act effectively creates a new public law tort where a p ublic authority 'acts' incompatibly (which includes a failure to act compatibly) with one or more of the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (s.6).

The determination of public authority status is a matter for the courts, but considerable guidance is available on this issue; the key test is whether 'functions of a public nature' are undertaken.Public authority status is not restricted to the obvious ones, such as government departments and local authorities.

It includes courts, utilities, regulatory bodies, charities running nursing and residential homes, hospices, and public advice services -- key organisations substantially affecting disabled people's lives.The Act is also a significant tool of statutory interpretation -- the provision that legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights may have implications for disabled people, where discretionary decisions are taken under primary legislation, such as detention under the Mental Health Act, or the requirement on service providers to make 'reasonable adjustments' under the Disability Discrimination Act.The 'victim' of a breach has a cause of action under the Act within one year.

But the Act has wider implications for litigation; because the courts are public authorities, and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) confer considerable discretion to the court in managing cases, which will need to be exercised compatibly with the Act.For example, the court's power to order the disclosure of legally privileged documents (CPR 48.7.3) has already been questioned within the context of article 8 (the right to privacy) jurisprudence (Giniral Mediterranean v Patel [1999] 3 All ER 673).

Moreover, one or more Convention rights can be pleaded in any legal proceedings as long as the 'victim test' is satisfied.

The Act can be joined to any application in civil or criminal cases, where Convention rights arise -- a cursory glance at key Convention rights demonstrates how HRA pleadings may be used to reinforce or counter arguments under other legislation.NON-DISCRIMINATIONEach Convention right is reinforced by article 14, which states that Convention rights are to be enjoyed and secured 'without discrimination on any ground such as sex race colour .

.

.

or other status'.

While disability is not specifically mentioned as a ground of discrimination, it has been taken to fall within the category of 'other status' (Botta v Italy [1998] EHLRL 486).

Article 14 can therefore be used in combination with a substantive right in order to claim that in respect of that right, the public authority has discriminated.PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO JUSTICEThe HRA's impact on legal processes and procedures will be effected particularly through the application of article 6 which covers access to the courts system as well as 'equality of arms' within legal proceedings.

Article 6 may be used to assist an argument that an accused who has the right to a legal aid lawyer should also be provided with an interpreter throughout the trial to prepare the case effectively.Likewise, a person with a visual impairment may be entitled to the provision of the key documents in alternative formats.

In Airey v Ireland [1979] 2 EHRR 305, the European Court of Human Rights held that article 6(2) did not imply an automatic right to legal aid in civil proceedings but imposed an obligation on states to make courts accessible, and offer financial help in appropriate circumstances.Article 6 does not stop with the courts -- tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, such as appeals to the independent tribunal services, are covered.

In Feldbrugge v Netherlands [1986] EHRR 452, the applicant challenged a decision by the president of the appeal board to withdraw her sickness allowance, and the European Court upheld the challenge on the basis that she had not been denied the opportunity to make representations about her medical condition or to consult the medical reports.MEDICAL LAW & HEALTH SERVICESWhere clinical decisions of 'life or death' arise -- such as 'do not resuscitate' notices, or decisions not to provide (or consent to) life-saving treatment to infants with serious disabilities -- article 2, the right to life, may have a role.

It could help refine the law in this difficult area and bring about consistency between cases where the court needs to strike a balance between the effects of life-prolonging treatment and the quality of life and level of suffering involved.

It may also help develop the legal framework where adults lack capacity to make medical decision on their own behalf.Article 2 may also have implications for resource-based decisions of NHS bodies.

While health authorities have a level of discretion in allocation of resources, the senior law lord Lord Bingham has said: 'Difficult and agonising judgements have to be made as to how a limited budget is best allocated' (R v Cambridge Health Authority ex parte B [1995] 2 All ER).

Health authorities will need to consider how to operate their discretion in accordance with article 2 and article 14.SOCIAL SERVICES AND COMMUNITY CARE, DETENTION AND MENTAL HEALTHArticles 3 (the prohibition of inhuman/degrading treatment) and 5 (the right to liberty) are especially relevant for vulnerable adults.

Abuses within mental institutions, residential or care homes, and prisons are the type of circumstances which may be covered.

In extreme cases, a local authority's failure to act where abuse has been reported may raise article 3 rights.

For example, in TP & KM v UK (European Commission, 28945/95), the failure of a local authority to place four badly abused children on the Child Protection Register, and the inadequacy of their protection mechanisms, were considered by the European Commission on Human Rights -- in light of the severity of the abuse -- to be in breach of article 3.Where disabled people are detained either as prisoners or as mental health patients, care must be taken to avoid situations in which article 3 rights may be breached; for example, it could be argued that unnecessary and prolonged handcuffing of a sign language user -- thus denying that person's ability to communicate -- is inhuman treatment.It may also be possible to invoke article 5 where decisions are taken by social services on cost grounds to place disabled adults in institutional care in preference to home care, with the effect that those persons are practically unable to discharge themselves on account of their disability.While article 5 contains an exception for lawful detention of persons of 'unsound mind', decisions and court orders under the Mental Health Act need to be taken proportionately to the condition (Winterp v Netherlands [1979] 2 EHRR 387).

Likewise, the handling of a conditional release pending acceptable aftercare arrangements from a compulsory confinement under the Mental Health Act has been challenged where the mental health review tribunal failed to make any attempts to fulfil those conditions (Johnson v UK [1999] 27 EHRR 440).

The same considerations should apply to detention under the insanitariness provisions of the National Ass istance Act.FAMILY LAW, PRIVACY AND BODILY INTEGRITYArticles 8 and 12 may have wide application to situations involving personal decisions ranging from pregnancy and adoption rights, the freedom to express one's sexual identity, and to enter into legally binding associations.

They may be invoked as a counter-balancing argument in 'best interest' cases involving adults lacking capacity or with learning difficulties where decisions are taken to proceed with intrusive medical treatment.The denial through a sterilisation order of a young woman's right to have children is an obvious example of an area where rights and personal welfare may come into conflict (Re X (Adult Sterilisation) [2000] All ER (D) 204).

Privacy is also widely interpreted to include personal relationships; consequently, monitoring techniques in residential homes such as CCTV may well involve article 8 rights.ACCESS TO INFORMATIONArticle 8 may also extend to a right to information relating to a person's private life.

In R v Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services Authority ex parte Martin [1995] 1 All ER, the Court of Appeal considered the common law to be compatible with article 8 and compelled a health authority to give a patient access to records in circumstances where the statutory right did not apply.

In Gaskin v UK [1989] 12 EHRR 36, the European Commission held that a child raised in local authority care should have the right to obtain information about his treatment.PROPERTY PROTECTIONArticle 8 provides for the respect of a person's home, which has been invoked in cases of harassment and extreme nuisance.

In Marzari v Italy [1999] 28 EHRR CD 175, the European Court recognised that in exceptional circumstances of illness or disability, article 8(1) may involve a positive obligation on the state to provide appropriate accommodation.

This area of jurisprudence has been re-enforced by protocol 1, and it will be interesting to see how it develops.Last year, some commentators estimated that implementation of the HRA would create up to 5% additional litigation (see [1999] Gazette, 8 September, 14).

But any accurate prediction of the positive impact of the HRA on disability rights is probably unfeasible; partly it will depend on the approach which the UK courts take in the interpretation of Convention rights, and how they might apply the states' 'margin of appreciation' in securing them.More broadly though, the process of planning for implementation of the HRA is likely to engender significant cultural changes in the public services which most affect disabled people.