1. Was it appropriate for the courts to develop the definition of ‘illegal entrant’ to include someone who entered by deception? What would have been the alternative?
A. Explain who was included in the definition of illegal entrant before the courts developed it in this way.
B. Give an account of the developments in the courts, and what kind of activity is now included.
C. As the use of false documents was already an offence, what additional powers in respect of the use of false documents did this give to the government?
D. How else was enforcement power extended?
E. Aside from case law development, how could these situations have been handled?
2. What are the implications of the new removals policy? Should there be a right of appeal against removal and if so, on what grounds?
A. Explain what is meant by the ‘new removals policy’ and what legal provision introduced this change. What was the situation before this change?
B. Is there any appeal against a removal decision under the current regime? Explain in what circumstances and at what stage such an appeal may take place.
C. Should there always be an appeal against the actual removal? How would this differ from the present position?
D. What would be the effect of such a change, and give your reasons for being in favour of or against it.