1. Why does the Refugee Convention exclude from protection those who have committed a serious non-political crime? Is there still a justification for limiting this exclusion to non-political crimes? What would be the effect of excluding people from protection for any serious crime?

A. The reasons for this are readily found in case law such as T and Pushpanathan. This question is unlikely to need a great deal of research.

B. The second part of the question invites discussion of the difference between political and non-political crimes. When the crime is serious, is there really a difference? (see T)

C. Discuss how s.54 Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 opens this question far wider than before.

 

2. Does the law now strike the right balance between denying a safe haven to those who perpetrate atrocities and giving refuge to those who are in danger of persecution?

A. Consider the justification for the exclusion clauses, and come to your view on whether this kind of provision is needed.

B. Relying on case law, consider the spectrum of acts which may give rise to exclusion from refugee status.

C. Form your own reasoned view of whether the bar for exclusion is appropriate.

D. Consider the actual effect of exclusion from status, and whether this influences your conclusions.

 

3. Is the CJEU’s decision in Lounani consistent with the final conclusion of Mr Al-Sirri’s case?

A. Set out in your own words a summary of the decision of the CJEU in Lounani

B. Identify the key points made by the Supreme Court in Al-Sirri about the interpretation and application of Article 1F(c), including standard of proof, degree of individual responsibility, the character of the acts.

C. Identify how the principles determined by the Supreme Court were applied to Mr Sirri in the Tribunal. Now apply those principles to the facts as far as you can identify them in Mr Lounani’s case, and form a conclusion.