Clayton: Textbook on Immigration & Asylum Law 3e 
End-of-chapter question guidanceClayton: Textbook on Immigration & Asylum Law 3e
Chapter 15
1. Does the House of Lord judgment in the case of Saadi recognize the right in Article 14 UDHR to claim asylum?
There is no easy 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question. Read the High Court judgment in Saadi and the House of Lords judgment. A comparison of the two will highlight the issues very clearly. It is a question to mull on.
2. Is it appropriate that the decision to detain should be a discretionary one without statutory criteria to guide its exercise?
A. You might ask, 'appropriate to what?' Presumably the gravity of the matter and the prima facie infringement of a right that is involved.
B. The assumption behind the question is that statutory criteria are superior to discretionary ones. In what respects is this the case?
C. Explain what are the current criteria and how they are arrived at.
D. What kind of accountability is there in the exercise of these criteria?
E. Conclude with an evaluation, noting how it would be different if criteria were statutory and whether this is achievable.
3. Should asylum seekers have an automatic bail hearing as criminal suspects do?
A. Note there was a provision for this in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which was never implemented and is now repealed. Reading the Parliamentary debates about these developments might reveal some of the reasoning behind them.
B. It would be helpful to clarify the scope of the immigration detainees under discussion here. Identify the legal stages at which 'asylum seekers' can be detained.
C. Consider the reasons that criminal suspects have automatic bail hearings. Do these apply to asylum seekers?
D. What, if any are the material differences?
E. Do these differences indicate that a lesser scrutiny of detention is warranted?
View print version