Abu Qatada and the Saga of the Three Months... Theresa May IS Right

In the UK papers this past week the question of whether the UK Home Office "got it's dates wrong" has been batted back and forth and large amounts of hot air and grumbling has been generated.

May I just - instead - inject a simple line of clear logical analysis to this :

1.  The European Court appeal rules are perfectly clearly set out - see here for a PDF version:  http://tinyurl.com/ECHR-Appeal-Rules


2.   An extract from the relevant Section VI(b) of those rules (page 13) clearly state that :

"The Panel declares inadmissible any referral requests which:
. . .
(b) do not comply with the three-month rule set out in Article 43 § 1 of the
Convention. 

In this connection, it is to be noted that the period of three months within which referral may be requested starts to run on the date of the delivery of the judgment, irrespective of whether the party concerned may have learned about it at a later stage.
It expires three calendar months later and is not interrupted by bank holidays or periods of judicial recess. The request for referral should reach the Registry of the Court before the expiry of the above-mentioned period. "



3.  The judgement (which triggered all this controversy) was handed down on 17th January 2012.


4.  Consider:    If we define time-intervals, for some purpose, where we agree we will disregard the hour of the day (as here), and simply define periods by the date then - looking at a couple of simple examples :

a.  If we were speaking of a period of one day,  beginning on the 5th, then on what date would you describe the subsequent period, as beginning ? 

Plainly and categorically, the 6th.  The next period begins at the start of the succeeding interval of time - here one day - hence the subsequent period begins one day later.   Seemingly trivial. 

b.  Now  -  extending that notion,  if we define a period of one calendar month, as beginning on 17th,  then on what day of the succeeding month, would you describe the succeeding period of one calendar month  as beginning ? 

Plainly it has to be at the start of the succeeding interval of time, which is 17th : were you to consider it  instead 18th,  then what would the beginning date of the next succeeding period be - 19th ?  And then, 20th ? and 21st ?  That is plainly wrong, as the boundary date would be 'drifting' down the months.    The only possible answer for the start of the succeeding period, is 17th.

SO - if it is plainly true that the succeeding period begins on 17th of the succeeding month,  then what is the end date, of the one-month period which begins on  17th?    Plainly, the answer must be,  the 16th of the following month. 


c.  And so it proves, for any longer period - a three-month period beginning ON 17th January, plainly, categorically and definitely, ENDS ON 16th of April - NOT 17th April.


If the ECHR or its spokespersons do not agree with that, they are simply wrong:  it is not a matter of opinion, or open to dispute: it is an unshiftable, indisputable logical fact arising from their own procedure wording. 


5.  Abu Qatada's lawyers submitted their appeal papers at 22:00 on Tuesday 17th of April:  22 hours outside the legal deadline.


I am not personally a great fan of Theresa May:  but on this she has been abused quite wrongly.   She IS right.    She deserves to receive apologies from many sides.    If the ECHR turns out not to agree would be a travesty - they will be making themselves - and their procedures, a laughing stock.

Go Theresa.   :-)