Abu Qatada appeal was in time but will not be heard by Grand Chamber

9 May 2012 by

So now we know. Sort of. Five judges of the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that Abu Qatada’s case will not be heard on appeal by the court’s Grand Chamber, despite the appeal application being lodged on time.

The Court’s somewhat scanty press release reveals little:

The Panel found that the request had been submitted within the three month time-limit for such requests. However, it considered that the request should be refused.

The post-match report is as follows. Joshua Rozenberg got it right in The Guardian, Carl Gardner won the day with his excellent series of posts (although his prediction that the GC would want to hear the case was wrong) and I hedged my bets on the timing point in my latest post so I would have got it right – and wrong – either way. Those who saw me interviewed on the BBC News earlier today will not have seen the part they edited out, which was me wrongly predicting, for similar reasons to Carl Gardner, that the Grand Chamber would want to hear the appeal if the time limit issue was overcome.

I thought that the application of the law in relation to memoranda of understanding in this case was a controversial and important enough issue to merit Grand Chamber consideration.  The Court accepted that torture in Jordan was “widespread and routine” (judgment, para 107) and yet still accepted the promises of the Jordanian government not to torture Abu Qatada. On the other hand, as Joshua Rozenberg rightly pointed out, the question of whether a memorandum of understanding is accepted is largely a question of fact, not law, and therefore less likely to require Grand Chamber attention.

The judges ruled that the appeal was in time, which means that the Home Office got it wrong and Abu Qatada’s lawyers got it right. However, neither have been showered in glory by the incident given how unclear the rules and previous case law was about when the appeal should have been brought. Whatever they say, neither could reasonably have been sure.

This means that the original Chamber decision is now final. Don’t forget, Abu Qatada won his case on different grounds. So, the UK can rely upon diplomatic assurances in relation to Abu Qatada not being tortured, but cannot deport Abu Qatada until it has valid assurances that evidence obtained under torture will not be used in his trial. The Government say they have these assurances, but the court will need to confirm this is the case. Which is likely to take many months, if not years.

Clear as mud

In relation to this now defunct appeal, the great shame is that the judges have declined to explain why they ruled that the case was in time. Although this was not required of them, it would have been straightforward for them to explain why they decided the issue in this way.

Just to demonstrate the inconsistency in the Court’s approach to these cases, consider the different wording in the footnotes to the most recent Abu Qatada press releases. In the 19 April 2012 press release:

During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court.  [my emphasis]

This wording mirrored that in the press release from the day of the decision. But compare the footnote to today’s press release:

within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber [my emphasis]

Amazingly, these are press releases in the same case. The language is substantively different and implies a different time limit. You do not need to be a lawyer to know that “within” is not the same as “following”. This is not the way a court which decides such important issues should operate.

The position is now clearer, in the sense that all applicants can reasonably expect their 17 January decision notifications to generate a 17 April appeal deadline. But given the enormous and unusual controversy surrounding this case, in the interests of transparency and due process the Home Office could legitimately argue that the judges should – this time – have explained their reasoning.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. Nickd says:

    Setting aside all the other issues relating to AQ’s appeal, I completely agree that it would be more than helpful to see some more reasoning on why the appeal was ruled within time. Not least because government minister Theresa May categorically maintained it was not, she was clearly wrong. She should be made to answer to the HoC on how she got it so badly wrong; bearing in mind that it also points to a failure on her part to apply within 3 months to the ECHR against the ruling which went in AQ’s favour on January 17th. The Guardian reported she would not be lodging an appeal on I think April 16th. It does raise serious questions over a minister’s comprehension of key dates (or those advising her) and the need to not only be aware of them, but work well within them.

    mylegal.proboards.com (ilegal network)

  2. ObiterJ says:

    ” … given the enormous and unusual controversy surrounding this case, in the interests of transparency and due process the Home Office could legitimately argue that the judges should – this time – have explained their reasoning.”

    I agree. Perhaps, post Brighton work might consider addressing the need for reasoned decisions on points such as requests for references to Grand Chamber.

  3. frednach says:

    As I pointed out common sense dictates that the, three months deadline for appeal must commence from the day after judgement and not from judgement day per se; precedent that is followed pretty much in every court I know. It therefore follows, that the Home Secretary must answer few questions not least about her statement to the HoC informing everyone that AQ had not right of appeal. Secondly, it must also lead to the question as to what advice she received from her lawyers, and ultimately why they got it wrong, since the repercussions is too evident to see.

    As I understand it, AQ has now a right to make an application for bail (as his appeal was within the timescale) to the special Immigration Panel which may once again lead to a further hearing at the Supreme Court taking yet more time for arousal of public cynicism.

    But in substance it appears that he is ultimately going to be deported and it is merely the timing that has spectacularly gone wrong by the HS’s failure to wait a day for the expiry of appeal. This case also raises an important point raised by Mr Rosenburg namely fair trial with questions being asked as to how realistic this is given the fact that he ultimately was able to make a successful case for asylum from Jordan where he is now to be deported in clear light of the fact that there continues to be widespread torture; it therefore begs the question as to whether the government’s assurance is likely to hold water; are we expecting live trials, questioning etc? Secondly, on this point given the prejudicial and international publicity I suspect fair trial is simply a smokes screen.

    I think the lesson here is simple in the eagerness of the government’s desire to get rid of AQ at any cost due process has been found wanting, and not only that it has become a spectacle in raising suspicion, and yet more islamophobia prejudicial to public interest when all they needed to do is simply let due process take it’s course and wait for another day.

  4. mkp says:

    This guy is just an idiot. Othaman Abu Qatada that is … Must be loving all the attention he is getting! His punishment should be to wear a naqab so that we don’t need to look at his charming face

  5. Let’s hope the Committee of Ministers takes over 5 years to supervise execution of the judgment like they have with Hirst No2!

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: