THE existence of the Human Rights Act may provoke the ire of some because of the fact that it originated within the European Union.

But the difficulties of its birth should not detract from praise for its intent - protection of the rights of the individual.

Its introduction into our legal system is an attempt to enshrine rights which in other parts of the western world - the USA, in particular, springs to mind - are written into a constitution.

Its aims are, to say the very least, worthy, including as they do the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of discrimination.

The problems with the Act come with interpreting it. The reality is that it will be years before precedent has given our courts an ability to define its clauses and contradictions.

And it's those issues which are continuing to cause concerns for the family of murdered Worcestershire paperboy Stuart Gough.

They fear that Victor Miller, his self-confessed killer, will look to exploit the Act as a way of reducing the amount of time he has to spend behind bars.

After Miller admitted the killing, the trial judge doubted whether it would ever be safe to release him.

That view is reinforced in a letter the Goughs received from Jack Straw, written when he was Home Secretary in 1997, saying Miller would serve at least 25 years of his life sentence.

Miller has now been behind bars for 13 years. Any judge who is asked to consider releasing him should show good sense when interpreting the Act and understand that justice dictates he should remain locked up.

Even if prison can be regarded as a place for rehabilitation, its clear that Victor Miller is nowhere near paying his debt to society.