A glimpse of common sense from Strasbourg as this hook-handed preacher of hate is sent packing
The European Court of Human Rights has decided that Britain can extradite hate preacher Abu Hamza to the US
We should certainly welcome today's ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of radical preacher Abu Hamza.
Of course it is right - indeed obvious - that this dangerous fanatic should face trial in the US on grave terrorism charges.
The drawbacks and limitations of the Extradition Act are well documented, but if it was designed for anything it was a case such as that of the hook-handed preacher of hate.
The outcome of the case - involving Hamza and five other men - was by no means certain, however. Strasbourg's judges have often proved themselves capable of delivering bizarre and ridiculous rulings.
The court's rag tag judges - many of whom have no judicial experience and are simply political appointments, academics or human rights enthusiasts - are also extremely adept at both expanding the court's realm into what would properly be considered domestic matters, or simply disregarding the European Convention on Human Rights, and making the law entirely as they see fit.
Today's ruling concerned two questions - firstly if life imprisonment without parole constitutes torture or inhumane treatment, and secondly if detention in a US maximum security prison was a breach of the same right, protected under article 3 of the convention.
The court found that in none of the six cases would the men's treatment violate their rights.
Any ruling to the contrary on either count would have been seen as Strasbourg standing in judgment on the United States, our closest ally, a civilised nation and democracy, and finding its penal system fundamentally unjust.
Unpredictable: The ECHR is known for its often bizarre rulings
Put that way, it is less of a surprise that the judges, including those from Cyprus, Albania and Montenegro, found themselves incapable of summoning up the stratospheric heights of hubris that would have been necessary to make such a ruling.
Had they done so, the implications for Britain's difficult relationship with the court would have been profound. Opposition among Tory MPs to the court would have hardened, and divisions with the Lib Dems, Strasbourg's champions in Whitehall, would have been further exposed.
The pressure on Ken Clarke to secure some profound reform of the court at the Brighton Conference next week would have reached boiling point.
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke must push through reform of the court
As it is, Mr Clarke must still deliver a deal which satisfies the court's sceptics, by limiting its powers and restoring the ability of states to decide laws themselves without constant and infernal meddling from Strasbourg.
We can only wish him luck, as without proper changes, the court will continue to frustrate the will of Parliament.
Later this year the ECHR will rule on prisoner voting - and in all likelihood restate its belief that inmates must have access to the ballot box from behind bars.
And a court ruling may yet mean al Qaeda preacher Abu Qatada is walking the streets a free man just weeks before the start of the Olympics.
So while this judgment is welcome, it is hard to escape the feeling that this merely postpones the inevitable day of reckoning between Parliament and the Strasbourg court.