What has become the poisoned chalice of his career will be grasped once more by the British Home Secretary, Jack Straw, when he decides, for the second time, what is to be done with the former Chilean dictator, Gen Augusto Pinochet.
The announcement is expected as early as today.
Whether he decides that the old man will face the legal process in Britain for extradition to Spain to face substantially reduced charges of torture in the light of the Law Lords' judgment last month, or that he can slip the net of the Spanish judges and board the Chilean airforce flight waiting for him at RAF Northolt, it is yet another staging post in the guessing game the world's media have been locked into with the Home Secretary since September last year.
Stay or go, Mr Straw's decision could prove to be something of a personal watershed. It comes at a critical moment for the government just as the Prime Minister, Mr Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Mr Robin Cook are sending the message to dictators or to President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia and his generals that come what may, they will be hunted down for war crimes perpetrated against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
The political and public consensus on Mr Straw's career before the Pinochet affair landed on his desk was that this bespectacled, somewhat dull Commons performer was at least a "safe pair of hands".
He has regularly trotted out the Labour line, since Mr Blair's government came to power, of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Once he was safely ensconced in high office, his supporters breathed a collective sigh of relief. He would no longer be forced to play second fiddle to the Tories' star performer, Mr Michael Howard, a man who managed to make Mr Straw appear second-rate with little obvious effort.
Some political observers are asking whether, in the light of "incomprehensible stumbles" in recent weeks, he is really up to the job.
The ill-fated attempt to block the release of a group of IRA prisoners from the Maze prison in Northern Ireland, including the Brighton bomber, Patrick Magee, just hours before they were due to walk free, and at another sensitive point in the protracted negotiations on the implementation of the Belfast Agreement, was widely criticised in the media. Mr Straw defended his action at the time by saying it was a means of testing the law as it stood in the light of the agreement. And the Northern Ireland Secretary, Mo Mowlam, was reported as being deeply angry with the move.
Furthermore, his handling of the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence, once it was discovered that sensitive information about informants was wrongly published by the inquiry team, left him open to more criticism.
While Mr Straw was not responsible for the error - the Macpherson team quickly admitted the mistake - his decision to leave his junior minister, Mr Paul Boateng, to clear up the mess and deal with MPs baying for his blood did little to rescue the situation and simply compounded the anguish of the Lawrences.
In the light of these blunders and just as the Conservative leader, Mr William Hague, attempts to re-cast himself in the image of the "friendly bloke" of British politics this week, commentators suggest that Labour has its own weak link, showing little of the barrister's skill that he so keenly employed in the climb to power.
But few would wish to be in Mr Straw's position as he ponders the fate of the former Chilean dictator. The legal ball-game has been grinding on for months, and should he decide that Gen Pinochet must remain in Britain to face the courts, the affair will no doubt come back to haunt him over and over again.
And then there are the twin figures in the Pinochet story hovering in the background and watching Mr Straw's every move. There are the vocal, intensely emotive campaigners who have seen their husbands, fathers, sisters and wives disappear during Gen Pinochet's regime; and on the other side, influential figures in the British establishment, calling for Gen Pinochet's release and Mr Straw's head.
When all the arguments have been presented, Mr Straw must, as befits his quasi-judicial role in the affair, reach a decision based in law. And that is all that can be asked of him, whether his critics like it or not.