It was just over 60 years ago that the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) was signed in Rome, on 4 Nov 1950. 
The Convention was drafted by the nations of the Council of Europe with significant impetus and drafting input from British lawyers in the aftermath of World War II. The Council of Europe was founded to defend human rights, democracy and the Rule of Law. 

Bindmans LLP, specialists in human rights law, as well as personal injury, clinical negligence and 

Stephen Grosz, head of the Public Law and Human Rights team at the leading civil rights law firm Bindmans LLP says: “The Convention allows people who consider that their rights have been violated by a state party (a national government) and who cannot get a remedy at the national level to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.”  

Bindmans was founded in 1974 by a small group of solicitors specialising in civil liberties and the rights of the individual and these concerns have remained at the heart of the firm as it has grown.  It has a reputation for being at the cutting edge of legal developments - particularly in relation to issues around human rights, discrimination and the powers of public authorities.

The firm has been involved in cases against the UK government and Turkey, France, Romania, Latvia, Hungary, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Current work includes human trafficking and access to court to bring proceedings in respect of allegations of torture.

Other examples of significant cases in which Bindmans has been involved include:

• Goodwin v United Kingdom (protection of journalistic sources and freedom of expression)
• Silver & others v United Kingdom (prisoners’ right to correspondence)
• East African Asians v United Kingdom (immigration discrimination)
• Abdulaziz & others v United Kingdom (right of women settled in the UK to bring in their husbands and fiancés – private and family life/discrimination)
• I and Goodwin v United Kingdom (recognition of transsexuals) 
  Sutherland v United Kingdom (criminalisation of sex between gay men under 21)
• Lustig-Prean & other v United Kingdom (ban on gay people in the armed forces)
• Sahin v Turkey (headscarf ban in Turkish universities)
• Ashingdane v United Kingdom (mental patients’ access to courts)
• Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (state immunity against proceedings for torture)

Current cases include:

• Lowenthal and O’Sheh v UK (whether kettling [also known as ‘containing’] innocent people for several hours to prevent a breach of the peace by others, is  a violation of Article 5 of the ECHR)
• Animal Defenders International v. UK (Article 10 of the ECHR case regarding political advertising and the right to freedom of expression) 
  CN v. UK [2009] (extent of UK’s obligations to legislate against forced labour under Article 4 ECHR)
• Mitchell and ors v. UK  (claim against the UK for failure to provide a civil remedy for torture committed by the Saudi Arabia Government)

Personal injury lawyers are expressing concern that Lord Young's recently published report 'Common Sense, Common Safety', produced following a review of health and safety laws and compensation claims in the UK, may restrict access to justice and funding for rehabilitation for those involved in serious injury claims. 

The report, which was published on 15 October and has been accepted by the Government, aims to address the so called compensation culture. However, personal injury and clinical negligence lawyers have identified a range of shortcomings in its findings:

• a one size fits all approach restricting recoverability of costs tries to treat a child who becomes paraplegic in an accident with a difficult claim but significant needs in the same way as a person claiming for a whiplash injury - yet the need and complexity are vastly different;
• no clear recommendations are made on how to deal with claims management companies which sell claims to the highest bidder with no check of the service offered and often encourage claims by way of incentives;
• the fact that costs in personal injury and clinical negligence claims are frequently driven by defendants who refuse to admit liability and/or protract litigation is ignored;
• many cases which are valid but difficult to prove may not be taken on under the new proposals because of fears that litigation costs will not be recovered - thus resulting in only 'sure fire' cases being taken on and a loss of access to justice for those with significant injuries;
• in clinical negligence claims, removing after the event insurance may result in only those who can afford to pay for expert reports as part of the investigation of their case being able to bring claims - meaning access to justice for the rich rather than the deserving;
• there is no focus on quality standards for those advising on personal injury claims to ensure that only valid cases are pursued. 
  

Philippa Luscombe, a partner in Penningtons' personal injury team, has analysed the report and gives expert commentary on its implications for those seeking compensation in this country.