Why prisoners have more human rights than old folk in care

Five Law Lords came to this conclusion when they ruled that old people in independent care homes are not subject to the Human Rights Act.

The ruling - which will affect 300,000 pensioners across the country - leaves people in these homes more vulnerable to neglect and abuse because, unlike hospital patients, council tenants or prisoners, they are not protected by human rights laws.

The ruling was attacked by MPs, charities campaigning for the elderly and human rights groups.

Age Concern described the decision as "a catastrophe" and Help the Aged said it was "a sickening blow to older people".

Civil rights group Liberty said it was a "bonkers" decision which put the profits of care home owners before the needs of their clients.

The Disability Rights Commission said the ruling was "perverse", while the British Institute of Human Rights said: "The House of Lords has undermined the fabric of human rights protection in the UK."

Over the past five years the Daily Mail, as part of its Dignity for the Elderly campaign, has highlighted numerous examples of old people being denied their basic rights.

The test case was brought on behalf of an 84-year-old Alzheimer's patient threatened with eviction from her care home. The woman - known only as Mrs YL - was placed in the Southern Cross Health Care home by Birmingham City Council.

But due to an "irreconcilable breakdown" in the relationship between Mrs YL's family and the care home management, she was asked to leave last year.

When drafting the Human Rights Act in 1998, Ministers said it should apply to all public bodies.

But they left a loophole by failing to include private sector care homes - which make up nine out of ten care homes - even when the person is paid for by a local authority.

Mrs YL's lawyers had argued that even though the Southern Cross home was privately-run, it should adhere to the Human Rights Act because it was under contract to the local council.

They claimed that the threatened eviction contravened Mrs YL's human right to family life and that under the Human Rights Act, she should be allowed to stay.

However, five Law Lords have now decided by a 3-2 majority that in this case the Human Rights Act did not apply.

They argued that the existing laws governing standards of treatment in care homes should be sufficient.

A spokesman for Southern Cross Healthcare said it was "delighted" with the decision, which, he added, "will be welcomed by all those private organisations that provide care to both young and old vulnerable people".

He said: "The fact that the House of Lords has decided that private care providers should not be public bodies for the purposes of the Human Rights Act does not in any way deflect from our determination to ensure that the privacy, dignity and safety of all our service users is protected at all times and Southern Cross as a company remains committed to that aim."

Elderly people living in privately-run care homes are currently protected by the Care Standards Act 2000, which sets out minimum standards of care.

However, campaigners claim that this Act does not cover all potentially abusive or negligent situations.

Crucially, it does not prevent a care home from evicting a resident. Care home staff are also subject to the normal criminal laws prohibiting physical or mental abuse of an elderly person.