Cases taken to court using the Human Rights Act have more than halved in the last eight years, countering claims that the legislation has turned Britain into the compensation capital of the world.
Figures show that human rights legal actions peaked at 714 in 2002, shortly after the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, but have now fallen to a low of 327 cases last year.
The Conservatives have said they want to abolish the Human Rights Act in favour of a new Bill of Rights because of the harm they say has been done to British society; others have variously described the legislation as a "nutters' charter" and a "gold mine" for greedy lawyers.
But the new figures compiled by legal publishers Sweet & Maxwell show that the British public are resorting to this law less and less.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties group Liberty, said: "Any new piece of legislation is bound to attract early litigation interest, but I have always thought it was a lot of spin about it turning Britain into a compensation capital.
"This has been mainly politically motivated and is without foundation."
Despite critical reports of a wave of apparently "crazy" cases taken under the legislation, figures show there has been a steady fall in human rights litigation since the Act became law back in October 2000.
Instead of compensation claims from prisoners, it has been local councils, charities, politicians, the media and even members of the Royal Family who have used the Act to assert their rights.
Those who have benefited from the legislation include supermodel Naomi Campbell, in her privacy battle with Mirror Group Newspapers, and Prince Charles, in his attempts to block the media from publishing extracts from his private diaries.
"The irony is of course that politicians and the media are increasingly talking about the importance of protecting individual rights, such as free speech and liberty, while at the same time trashing the very package that supports them," Ms Chakrabarti told The Independent.
"It's a complete nonsense to say the Human Rights Act is political correctness gone mad, and then complain that individual rights are not being properly protected in this country. Whether it's the Big Brother state, or over-zealous police at the G20 demo, or the interrogations of terror suspects, politicians and the media are more concerned than ever about individual rights. But they have got to wake up to the precious protections that support these rights. You can't have your cake and eat it," she said.
Stephen Grosz, head of public law and human rights at law firm Bindman & Partners, says the gradual fall-off in the number of human rights cases from their peak in 2002 undermines the argument that that the Human Rights Act has opened the floodgates to wave after wave of spurious challenges.
Sweet & Maxwell's research shows that a relatively large proportion of human rights cases over the last year have involved deportation, asylum and immigration issues which the publishers say may be a result of the Government's efforts to meet its target of removing 5,000 convicted foreign criminals from the UK.
The research shows that in 2008 11.6 per cent of all cases involving human rights arguments involved asylum, immigration and deportation cases.
Ms Chakrabarti said that plans by both the Tory and Labour parties to scrap the law had failed to offer a viable alternative to the Human Rights Act. "They both now want to bring in a Bill of Rights to replace the Act, but have so far failed to provide any substance. It is very foolish to replace the Act without saying what it would it be, or show how it would be any better. I have not seen anything better on offer," she said.
Sweet & Maxwell found that human rights arguments are also being used in cases that might normally be regarded as commercial disputes.
Mr Grosz said: "It will be interesting to see whether the Government's intervention in the banks and the financial markets will lead to more human rights claims. Investors and institutions seem to be showing a willingness to explore claims under the Human Rights Act as a way to recoup their losses."
Comments