1. How do you think the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 changed the substance and nature of immigration control?

A. To consider the effect of the 2000 Order, explain first what powers of immigration control existed before the 2000 Order, e.g.:

• Leave to enter (s.3 Immigration Act 1971)
• entry clearance (immigration rules)
• subsidiary powers to enable decision under s.3 (schedule 2 1971 Act)
• who exercised these powers and
• where

B. What changes did the 2000 Order make to each of these above points?

C. What different overall qualities or characteristics did this give to the system, as compared with the period before the Order?

This question may be answered purely on the basis of reading this chapter and the legislative provisions to which it refers.

 

2. What would you consider to be appropriate medical grounds for refusal of leave to enter and who do you think should make that decision? How does your idea compare with the present law?

A. State what are the present medical grounds for refusal of leave to enter.

B. Explain who makes this decision in law and in effect.

C. Discuss any problems you think arise from this system of decision-making.

D. Suggest any solutions you can imagine to the problems you see.

This question may be answered purely on the basis of reading this chapter and the legislative provisions to which it refers.

 

3. In December 2012 the boxer Mike Tyson was refused entry to the UK under para 320(2) of the immigration rules. See http://www.thebookseller.com/news/mike-tyson-event-cancelled-after-uk-entry-refusal. Compare this with the case of R v SSHD ex Bindel [2001] Imm AR 1. Use this is a basis for commentary on the development of rules excluding individuals on the basis of criminal convictions.

A. Explain what para 320(2) does. What is its purpose in public policy? How does the case of Sehwerert shed light on that purpose?

B. How was it used in the case of Bindel?

C. How was it used in the case of Mike Tyson in 2012?

D. Comment on any changes you observe in the use of para 320(2) and suggest any possible reasons for this.