Who is right on the ECHR – May or Qatada?
Who is right? Did Abu Qatada‘s lawyers register an appeal at the ECHR grand chamber in the nick of time? Did the Home Office think the deadline was earlier than it actually was? On such things rests whether we are in for a minor flurry or a “Thick of It” moment.
Theresa May was categorical in her interview just now with Norman Smith on BBC News 24 that the ECHR has discretion to look at an appeal even if it is after the three- month deadline. A legal expert I’ve just spoken to thinks that isn’t right.
More to the point, the fundamental question in this procedural row is: when does the clock start ticking for the three-month appeal window? Theresa May says there is absolutely no question that if, as in this case, a judgement is passed in Strasbourg on 17 January, then the window for appeals closes at midnight on the evening of 16 April. Does it?
Interestingly, the window for taking a case to the ECHR is that you must register the case “six months from the end of domestic proceedings”. BUT the ECHR lays down that the clock starts ticking the DAY AFTER the domestic proceedings finish.
If the same time counting approach applied for appeal cases, and you have to say it would be a bit odd to operate two separate stopwatch approaches, then Abu Qatada’s very experienced defence team, QC Edward Fitzgerald and solicitor Gareth Peirce, may have got it right.
The Home Office says they’re quite sure they’ve got it right and that there were verbal reassurances given by the ECHR about the deadline as recently as Monday.
What’s the overall impact? It drags things out potentially and that could mean that a judge looks more benignly on Abu Qatada’s bail application – the government’s argument for putting him behind bars was that deportation could be (relatively) soon. If the a possible deportation date recedes further into the distance a judge might think Abu Qatada is not such a “flight risk”.
So, it may only buy the Qatada team some time and protract the entire process but that is a success in this exercise and either an irritant or a major embarrassment for the Home Office, depending who is right.
Follow @GaryGibbonBlog on Twitter.
There are 10 comments on this post
Nothing like hedging your bets Gary!
Wow, we have a bunch of morons in charge of this country. The Home Office Minister Theresa May is a laughing stock. Only in the UK criminals and other undesireables have more rights than the honest law abiding citizens. No wonder Britain has become the cess pool of the world and a safe haven for every type of crook/criminal on the face of the planet. No wonder Abu Qatada has a smug smile on his face, because he knows that the incompetence of the government ministers will be exploited by his legal team paid for by taxpayers money. I am ashamed to be British
How much is this costing us. Assume this illegal immigrant to the UK is doing all this on Legal Aid and, of course his large family are living on benefits. Legal Aid for most of us is being stopped yet people like him get it all paid. Wonder if legal aid and benefits were not available whether he and his entourage would still be here.
Its time the government did what france and italy do and ignore these unelected judges. Normal right minded people are fed of of Qatada, who hates this country so much, but quite happily sponges of the benefits system we have. He contributes nothing to this country only security problems,Time for us to say good riddance to bad rubbish and wave him off. I am not sure Heathrow will be able to cope with the amount of people wanting to make sure he goes. Surely the human rights of decent hard working people should be put before this neanderthal
It is 3 months from the date of the judgment (17 January 2012), but you don’t count the day it was delivered. This is normal practice in law. The same rule applies to registering securities in the UK (which must be registered within 21 days). It is to eliminate any unfairness caused by the time that the judgment is delivered on the day (9:00 am vs 5:00 pm). There is no doubt the Home Office got this wrong.
The European Court Of Human Right’s General Practice for deciding such requests makes it clear that “the period of three months within which referral may be requested starts to run on the date of the delivery of the judgment” not the day after. The judgement was on 17 January and if you include this date it would expire on 16 April. The 17th April would be 3 months and 1 day because the 17th January is day 1. They should know their own rules but given they use different rules in different circumstances it is not surprising.
Who is paying Abu Qatada’s lawyers bills. For a man who for so long has shown so many people the way to kill, now finds that he is fighting (for his life) as hard as he can so as not to face justice himself. Surely, you would think that he would be happy to follow those that he advised, to meet his god.
My problem with this is that our government are using this as an excuse to erode the powers of the ECHR. David Cameron had the Human Rights Act in his sights before he was even elected. At the same time, they criticise China for human rights abuses. Yes, terrorism is a threat, but I can’t help thinking the threat is often exaggerated to serve the agenda of a government which aims to take away the freedoms we take for granted.
Why not wait the extra 24 hours thus removing any doubt as to when the clock started ticking on the 3 months deadline for the appeal? What possible difference would the extra 24 hours have made?
In waiting for the 24 hours then the Home Office would have had certainty instead they have a mess of their own making.
What an awful country we live in.We have no right to decide who can live here.
so it becomes a haven for criminals and others.Thanks to weak governments who
seem more interested in protecting the rights of outsiders than their own
people who elect them.