Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
Ferocious Aardvark wrote: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 including 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.
Rule 73 of the Court Rules says: 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.
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.
McLaren_Field wrote: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 bullshit - check your bullshit first.
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
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
Him wrote:Rule 73 of the Court Rules says: 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.
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.
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.
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Chris28 wrote:... 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.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
Mintball wrote: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.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Him wrote:Rule 73 of the Court Rules says: 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.
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. ...
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.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
Ferocious Aardvark wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 79 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
