With the news this week that Abu Qatada’s appeal to stay in the UK has been granted, politicians and the press have been quick to express their outrage. With sensationalist claims from the Daily Mail that it will cost the taxpayer over £5 million a year to keep tabs on Qatada and headlines that he is ‘Britain’s Least Wanted Man’, What is the story behind Qatada’s prominence in the news and what is fact or fiction?
Arriving in the UK 20 years ago, Abu Qatada was given asylum in the country due to the fact he had been tortured in his homeland of Jordan. This was not uncommon and in the early 90s, the UK and London, in particular became a ‘safe haven’ for Islamists who fled from tyrannical regimes in the Middle East. Despite having been here since 1993, the UK has spent the last 10 years attempting to deport him back to Jordan to face trial for conspiring to cause explosions on Western and Israli targets in 1998. First detained in 2002 by the UK rulings by domestic courts have decided he should be deported to Jordan. However, after appealing the decision to the European Court of Human Rights they upheld his appeal in January and stated it would not be safe for him to return to Jordan given that he risks standing trial on evidence that was obtained by torture.
Seven months ago Home Secretary Teresa May confidently stated, “we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.” However, her promises have come up short. Although May was able to gain assurance from Jordan that Abu Qatada would not face an unfair trial, through challenging this decision in the Special Immigrations Appeal Court (SIAC) the ‘hate preacher’ has been able to stay in the UK as they also ruled it would be unsafe for him to return to Jordan. Now released on bail, Qatada will have a 16-hour curfew and taxpayers will be funding the strict surveillance he is under. It is no wonder the public are so outraged given that they are effectively funding a terrorist suspect.
The Prime Minster has expressed his explicit anger at the situation saying the UK “has moved heaven and earth” to try and comply with every convention that stands. David Cameron explicitly expressed his concern over Abu Qatadas continued presence as a threat to society and claimed that he should no longer have a right to live here. Justice minster Chris Grayling has similarly argued that the outcome of the ruling is evidence that the foundations of European Human Rights need to be seriously re-thought.
Although the majority of the British public and the UK government disagree with the ruling, it is ultimately out of their jurisdiction. As a member of the European Union the UK gives supremacy to European law over its own national law. Thus, the country must obey any ruling made by the European Court of Human Rights. Ignoring a court ruling could have a negative impact on the UK’s reputation and their commitment to protecting human rights in the eyes of the globe. Despite this, other countries such as France and Spain have previously deported individuals and disregarded European Court rulings receiving nothing more than a small fine and a disapproving letter. The government is clearly stuck between a rock and a hard place. The next step for the Home Office will be to attempt to overturn SIAC’s ruling, all the while taxpayers are funding Qatada’s surveillance and benefits. However, if this fails there is little else the government can do remove this dangerous man from society.
Image Credits: BBC News, The Independent