Three months from the 17th of January is when exactly? That's right, it's the 17th of April. So why does Theresa May and her department of lawers think otherwise? These people are supposed to be in charge of important stuff, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (Abu Qatada and his appeal deadline)

Perhaps she has the same legal advisors that NTC use?

Be fair, NTC only fumble the odd minutes, Theresa May missed a whole day.

Yes strange how even government officiasl talk publicly of an ongoing legal case yet our local town council refuses to discuss anything over someones human rights such as free speech with the taxpayers even though there is no legal case pending......or is there?

Some may disagree and argue that three calender months from 17 January expire 23:59, 16 April.

In any event, you want this guy to stay here?

No, I don't think he has any business being here, but the difficulty deporting him hasn't just harmed our national interests, it's seriously harmed the image of the Human Rights movement and that's what frustrates me most, and part of the problem would appear to be an incompetent government.

Three months from the 17th January is the 17th April and not the 16th, just like a week from today is next Thursday, not next Wednesday.

Actually, I think the term is ambiguous, but regardless, the government should have asked for the deadline date. I would have done. Also, the judgement should have defined the date and the time the judgement was declared, e.g. "All appeals must be lodged before midnight 16 April 2012.".

Sounds like a Clerical error.










(Geddit)?

Bishop to King.... Kafkas Castle & Czechmate.
ce

On the news, they referred to a letter that said 'within three months of today's date' (January 17).

Most times the legislation setting up a time requirement or limit defines the method of calculation - I know sometimes the day of the events (decision/placing of appeal) are excluded. Other times it allows for the date of delivery to the parties etc.
I tend to agree, HO should have asked the deciding Court when the time for appeal expired as it looks like the posting of the notice only happened after he had been nicked. Lawyers getting rich - they get paid regardless and also gain massive publicity for their practice.......

According to the coverage on Radio4 last night even the BBC reporter knew they'd got the date wrong a week before - he asked the ECHR what date they were working to and told the HO they were a day early in their reckoning, and the HO ignored the warning.

I understand the rules say "three months from the decision date", so I don't see where the confusion came in. The BBC reporter suggested the HO had subtracted a day for the leap year, and the HO didn't exactly deny it.

Radio 4 knew of the plan to nick him a week before? That is interesting.......

Mrs May has possibly been shafted by incompetent advisers in her Department. If norms are followed a Civil Servant is about to be promoted.....

I knew the leap year would get the blame.
Lords are leaping on youtube!

Disagree, that could be interpreted as 3 months and 1 day.

Generally, this has demonstrated one of the criticisms of the court in that its judges are inexperienced. The confusion over the date should never have arisen.

Aye.

It could be said that on a child's 10 birthday they begin their 11th year. Isn't it why the last century which was 19xx for its 100 years is refered to as the 20th century......

My 12 month car insurance runs from 07 June 2011 to 06 June 2012. If I had an accident on 07 June 2012, I would not be covered by that policy.

That the HO were going to arrest him was no great secret. They were barred from arresting him pending his appeal of the ECHR decision on the 17 January, and the rules gave him three months from the decision to lodge an appeal. What's scandalous is that the BBC were aware that the HO were working to a 16 April deadline for an appeal and they told the HO that the ECHR were working to a 17 April deadline and the HO ignored the potential problem.

Yes, a year's policy lasts for a year. This year's policy ends at midnight on the 6th of June 2011, and next year's policy will end a year from the end of the previous one, and that's midnight on the 6th of June 2012.

Likewise, the rules required AQ to lodge his appeal with the ECHR within three months from their decision on the 17th January, so the clock starts when they made their decision and midnight on the 16th of April is still within three months, midnight on the 17th is the deadline.

It would be three months and one day if the clock started at midnight on the 16th, but it didn't, the ECHR decision was made some time in the day on the 17th. Say for the sake of argument it was made at 1600 on the 17th. To the nearest minute that puts three months from that point as 1600 on the 17th April (which is already past the HO deadline) and because the time limit was expressed in months not minutes he actually has up to 2359 on the 17th April to lodge his appeal.