WHEN I last wrote about Abu Qatada in November last year, it was on the back of quite a few emails from constituents demanding that the government proceed to deport him anyway, in defiance of the courts.

Readers may recall that this is a long and complicated saga, and often confused with that of Abu Hamza (who we finally managed to deport last year after an equally long and frustrating legal process).

Abu Qatada is an Islamist extremist who came to Britain in 1993. Following his conviction in 1999 in absentia in his native Jordan for acts of terrorism, we have been attempting to deport him to face trial there.

The first proceedings in court to remove him began in 2001, and last week – 12 years and millions of pounds later – we are still trying, and failing, to get shot of him, so I can understand the anger and frustration, indeed I share it.

Earlier in the Abu Qatada saga we fell foul of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

ECHR prevented Qatada’s extradition on the basis that he might be subject to torture if returned to Jordan.

When the British government produced assurances from Jordan that this would not be the case, ECHR then prevented Qatada’s extradition on the grounds that he might not get a fair trial.

Last November, our own UK Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that the government had failed to provide a sufficient level of guarantee of a fair trial. It is important to remember that this was a decision by a British judge, Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in a British court.

And, on April 23, the Court of Appeal upheld Mr Justice Mitting’s ruling in favour of Qatada and against the government.

Now the only lawful course is for the government to petition the Supreme Court directly to hear a further appeal, or to drop the case and start proceedings all over again on the basis of a new international and binding treaty that it has just agreed with Jordan, which it was only signed on April 24.

My correspondents, egged on by tabloid newspaper headlines, demand immediate deportation despite the court rulings.

Were we to do so, ministers would not only be breaking the law themselves, they would also be ordering lawyers, officials, the police and airlines to break the law.

It would be a complete farce: as soon as a deportation notice was issued to Qatada, his lawyers would undoubtedly win an immediate injunction preventing us from removing him. Anyone who defied that injunction would themselves be imprisoned; imagine the ridiculous sight of the Home Secretary being led away in handcuffs, while Qatada was awarded compensation.

Ultimately it all boils down to this: Parliament makes the law and the courts interpret it. If we do not like the way the courts interpret the law then the answer is, not to break the law, but to get Parliament to change it.

I campaigned in the 2010 election for a mandate to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. The voters however, did not give my party that mandate and there is no majority in this parliament for the necessary reform of human rights legislation.

If this agenda is really important to voters, then they will need to consider carefully where each political party stands on the question when they next have an opportunity to elect a new parliament in two years’ time. I wonder where Qatada will be then.