Unfortunately though a phone call to the court is an utterly absurd suggestion. Why would you assume anyone answering the phone would even know?

Like all other rules of court, you have to look it up yourself, and stand or fall by that. I've had a quick look myself and the ECHR own site links to the relevant materials and these make it clear that an appeal must be delivered to the Court within 3 months [iincluding[/i the day of the judgment appealed against. Doesn't seem therefore to be any room, at all, for doubt.

The Court's own general rules contain the same calculation. It's easy. Either the day of the judgment counts as day 1, or it does not, and in this case it indisputably does.

As I suspected, May can, it seems, count.

I heard that May awarded a try on the seventh tackle last weekend as well.

That's thierryble.

Rule 73 of the Court Rules says:
[i
Rule 73 – Request by a party for referral of a case to the Grand Chamber
1. In accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, any party to a case may exceptionally, within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the judgment of a Chamber, file in writing at the Registry a request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. [/i

Now my reading of that would be that "Day 1" of the 3 months would be the day after the judgement, but then that's just my laymans point of view. But I would imagine this is where the confusion has originated.

However if the Home Office had asked someone at the Court and they had a different timescale, it might have been prudent to simply wait another day before arresting Qatada.

One of the most honest admissions I've heard from a politician was from Tony Barber who admitted that he knew nothing about finance and was even less interested in the subject when Heath made him Chancellor of the Exchequer after MacLeod died. Barber had been told he'd be responsible for getting the UK into the Common Market. Hence the main reason for the "Barber Boom" was that his general approach was "once we're in the Common Market everything will be ok".

There's also some interesting stuff in Chris Mullins diaries on the subject of ministers being moved on just when they start to understand the job.

It seems bizarre that there's confusion over dates since dates are fairly crucial to the justice system. If someone receives a 3 month prison sentence there isnt usually any dispute over whether he's let out on the 16th or 17th

The deemed date of service in standard immigration appeals is the working day after the date on the document, so I assume (with no knowledge of whether it's right) that "date of delivery" above implies date of service of the formal decision, i.e. in writing, so that would be the one day after the court announcement. Not read the full stuff tbh, but it sounds like a balls up.

Michael Howard was the worst for "I know best Home Secretary-ness". Lost loads of cases at the high court, not just on immigration and he IS a barrister.

Francis Maude – a lawyer – thought that you could simply 'forget' a bit of law for a couple of months when it was inconvenient. He was apparently somewhat shocked to be told by civil servants that no, this was not actually possible.

That's why some lawyers are MPs...

Shouldnt she change her name Theresa April?

Confusion over time limits is endemic in the law and always has been. Non-lawyers assume that it should be the easiest thing to calculate time limits but in fact it isn't.

"Within a period of three months from" a date is not the same as "within a period of 3 months after" a date. The delivery of judgment in Qatada's case was 17 January. Is 17 April "within 3 months of" 17 January? Clearly not. If it was, then 1st April is within 3 months of 1st January, 2nd July is within 3 months of 2nd April, 3rd October is within 3 months of 3rd July, 4th January is within 3 months of 4th October and thus 5/1/13 is within 12 calendar months of 1/1/12.

But, it isn't.

It also isn't what the rule says. The rule says "within 3 months from" not "within 3 months of" and apparently human rights lawyers based in London & at the European Court appear to think that means the 3 months hadn't expired. The only people who appear to think it had are Theresa May & the Home Office.

Which is largely irrelevant anyway as, as many people have said, a phone call and a bit of caution could have avoided the entire c0ck-up. Theresa May & HMG's desire to appear tough on this issue is the one and only cause of this ridiculous situation.

Reading today's Times, my understanding is the Judgment and the Rules say 2 totally different things, which has caused some of the confusion.

May claims to have confirmation from the ECHR that her interpretation of the date is correct, however when pressed she could not produce any sort of documentary evidence to support her position.

All very embarrassing, and we are continually told that we are not actually bound by the ECHR, so all the fuss seems to be because we want to be seen to be playing fair.

We could just do what France and Italy do; ignore Judgments we don't like, deport said individual, and pay some measly compensation when the ECHR kicks up a fuss.

They could certainly have avoided the farrago, which has been hugely embarrassing (to say the least), even if May is right.

But, the absurd claim that a phone call could have avoided it is just dumb. A phone call to whom? Why would the person on the other end of the line even know? Anyway, the simple fact is that no court offers legal advice. The person who takes your call will try to be helpful, but if you want to legal advice - ask a lawyer to advise you. And that way at least you can sue them or sack them if they advise wrong.

The people at the immigration tribunal have told me on numerous occasions

that the calculation is up to me, and they will not tell me an appeal deadline, beyond the "5 days from X" guidance

To be fair to May (or any other Minister), they should be receiving accurate advice on details such as this from the ministry. Supposedly the role of Ministers is around policy, and civil servants are responsible for implementation. The problems tend to arise when Ministers decide that they should interfere in specific cases, often in direct contradiction to the advice they receive. I suspect some debates between senior civil servants and Ministers would make 'Yes Minister' look like a documentary.

That's the problem in a lot of cases tbh. Ministers "know best" and often ignore the advice they are given

I see there are calls (particularly from Keith Vaz) for May to publish the advice she was given by Government lawyers.

Like that it going to happen. It would almost certainly be a waiver of legal advice privilege, and Quatada's lawyers could, potentially, get to see every single piece of advice she was given on the issue.

Advice to ministers is normally exempt from FOI, isn't it?

They always confirm the dates to me, but I only need confirmation on the Home Office's deadlines, not my own

That's what I meant, sorry for not being clear

She looked like she was gonna start crying today when the coppers were giving her grief at their conference.

I'm not surprised, she was hung, drawn and quartered.

Whoever did the staging needs a medal:

Apparently her aides wanted them to move the lectern but they lost out.

I wonder fi she's voluntarily reducing her police protection by 20%?