X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Exclusive: Tory MP accuses Theresa May of ‘dereliction of duty’ over Qatada case

7 December 2012

5:00 PM

7 December 2012

5:00 PM

A Tory MP has accused the Home Secretary of a ‘dereliction of duty’ that will put the British people at risk. His criticism concerns the way in which she is handling the Abu Qatada case.

Theresa May won permission this week to appeal against the Special Immigration Appeals Commission’s decision to block the deportation of Abu Qatada to Jordan. But the Home Office has confirmed in a letter to Tory MP Mark Reckless, seen by Coffee House, that it will base its strategy for the case on the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which rejected the Islamist cleric’s appeal in May, rather than the test confirmed by the House of Lords in Othman v SSHD 2010, when the House of Lords was at that time the highest court in the land for this country.

Reckless had asked the Home Secretary for assurance that she would plead in the appeal that it was the House of Lords test which binds the Court of Appeal and must be applied. The reply from May says:

‘As you will appreciate, our strategy in the case has been carefully considered at every stage by Government lawyers and leading counsel. A decision was taken to adopt the test laid down in January by the Strasbourg court, essentially because we considered the domestic courts were bound to follow it, and moreover if we are to win it would remove the opportunity for Qatada to re-open the case in Strasbourg.’

[Alt-Text]


The letter says that if the test applied by the House of Lords was used, ‘it would be open to Qatada to go back to Strasbourg, where he would inevitably get a further rule 39 indication restraining his removal pending a further hearing, so in practice we would be no further forward’. It adds:

‘Our arguments before the Court of Appeal are that SIAC misinterpreted and misapplied the Strasbourg test in various respects. I assure you that we will pursue the appeal vigorously. At the same time we are actively pursuing with the Jordanians a range of options to deal with the concerns identified by SIAC and thus permit Qatada’s removal as soon as possible.’

Reckless is horrified that the Home Office is submitting to the Strasbourg court, saying:

‘I see no reason why the Home Secretary should handicap herself by having Strasbourg approval. I think it’s a dereliction of duty, it’s putting people on our streets in danger.’

He told Coffee House that there was ‘no reason’ not to use the House of Lords’s test in the case.

A Home Office spokesperson said:

‘We are committed to removing Abu Qatada and we believe our approach, based upon legal advice, is the most effective one. We considered that the UK courts would have been bound to follow the Strasbourg test and applying a different test would have added further delay. Our position is that the Strasbourg test was misapplied by SIAC and the Court of Appeal have given us permission to appeal on that basis.’

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close