... or did Abu Qatada's legal team lodge his appeal a day late?

Personally I'd back May on this one, but am intrigued how on earth the ECHR office was apparently open to receive anything at 11 pm? That's the unfeasible bit for me.

I'd imagine it was faxed over rather than being physically handed in.

I would imagine that as an appeal is currently awaiting adjudication at the ECHR, the UK will not be able to carry out the deportation.

Given the speed the ECHR moves, it could take another three months for them to determine that the appeal was out of time, if that is the case.

Isn't it possible to simply bung the court clerk?

If it moved to Malta, I would say it would become part of the 'procedure'

A lawyer on 5Live today was saying that the European court take it as 3 calendar months from the day AFTER the original hearing, which I understand was on the 16th January and so means he had up until 23:59 on the 17th April to lodge any appeal.
Which would seem to say that Theresa May is wrong.

If that's the case, then it's yet another example of the beautifully-shod Ms May being less than fully competent.

The SSHD and her team are always making mistakes on these kind of things, that's why we have courts to pick up on their mistakes in following law and procedure.

Be interesting if Abu Qatada has a case for wrongful arrest/detention, an ongoing civil matter would also put a bar on his removal

"And I kid you not, he avoided deportation because of his pet cat"

Wouldn't be the same Theresa May would it?

In answer to the thread title then: no.

Not only that, but neither can she even err on the side of caution and make sure everything was in order before sending the lads round.

Just watch the spin doctors at work ... and it'll all be ECHR's fault.

As [iThe Sun[/i editor used to say ... you couldn't make it up.
Except she did.

Started last night, albeit in Sayeeda Warsi's usual cack-handed manner. Not so much "spin" more like "dolly-tub & mangle"

Yeah Ms Cooper was rightly having such fun over it and the usual suspect quickly decided to state 'Lets not try and make this political' (Or words to that effect) which is something she spouts everytime the Tories drop a testicle over something.
Although the best laugh of the night was the row between the reporter (His name escapes me at the min) and George Galloway.
George somehow came across as more of a nutjob than normal.

But back to Theresa May.
When you add this to the fact that she clearly dropped that ball on the lack of checks on passports and then swiftly set up the long term civil servant in charge to cover her own backside and the 'catgate' situation you do start to wonder if she is fit for purpose.
No scratch that she is totally out of her depth.

They're idiots - worse than that, they are arrogant idiots. Public schools and exclusive universities generate generations of idiots who are so f****g arrogant they can't admit they are wrong about anything, then they get put in charge of our f****g country. Mrs May is the shining example of what happens when an idiot that went to the "right schools" ends up in charge of something (it's their destiny to be leaders - hah!). Unfortunately we have the entire cast of Billy Bunter (including Eric "Bunter" Pickles himself) in the cabinet. A guy from the BBC actually told them they had the wrong date before they did it (he cheked with the court first). Simple rule is that it doesn't matter how [iyou[/i interpret things when the people who make the decision think it's different - check - do it their way.

Epic f******g fail.

She'd be out of her depth handing out leaflets in the Arndale.

Yep that point was made last night on QT.
The point was that if they were not sure then a quick phone call would have cleared it up.

Quite honestly I feel sorry for her and most of her colleagues in Ministerial posts - have a read of her schooling and employment history on Wiki and see if you can see any legal qualifications because I can't.

If David Cameron offered me the job of Home Secretary I'd snatch his arm off with both eyes on the salary, expenses, pension and lump sum pay-off, the next morning I'd probably ring him from my Home Secretary's office and tell him that I know eff-all about the law, didn't finish off my A levels at school and walked out of my engineering ONC exam when I couldn't answer any of the questions and would he mind telling me one more time why he'd picked me as Home Secretary ?

Why, oh why do we pick politicians to head departments and make important life-changing decisions (life changing for millions of people but probably not themselves), when we know full well that they have little or no experience in the subject - and then in twelve months time we'll shift them to a completely different portfolio to screw up ?

First rule of bull - check your bull first.

Amazing that one in Mat's department had the common sense to do the same



Certainly is.

Screw ups like this ought to see ministers sacked if they have not got the decency to resign. If they can't get a date right why are they to be trusted with anything else!

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.