Three days before Christmas, on 21 December, a charter flight from Jamaica -- (Y)ULE 966 -- landed at Gatwick airport.

Most of the 323 passengers were Jamaicans, visiting family and friends for Christmas.Before the flight landed, Gatwick immigration officials checked the passenger list and set in motion 'contingency arrangements', which involved the detention of 190 Jamaican passengers for questioning.

According to the Home Office, this was not a criminal investigation and concerned only immigration issues.The detained passengers were given tea, biscuits, eventually a meal, and pillows and blankets against the cold.

By 10pm, most were still waiting, as were their relatives in the airport.

Forty-nine were then taken to a new detention centre near Oxford, arriving in the early hours, while others were 'temporarily admitted' to stay with their families.

Interviews continued.

By the second evening, 70 had been given leave to enter the UK, while others remained on temporary admission; 70 had been refused leave to enter and 29 were still in detention.

Some -- but by no means all -- had seen lawyers.

On Christmas Day, 27 were flown back to Jamaica in a specially chartered plane, at a reported cost of £200,000.

Home Office handling of the incident was widely criticised.

Sir Ivan Lawrence, the chairman of the home affairs select committee, spoke of the need to 'stop people cheating the system', but his was a lone voice.The Daily Telegraph called it a 'race relations fiasco' which had -- for The Times -- a 'nasty aftertaste' of racism.

The West Indian standing conference said the detained Jamaicans had been 'made to appear as criminals by having to spend Christmas, recognised by the Christian world as a holy period, in prison instead of being with their families'.Friends and relatives of the passengers were understandably outraged.

One said: '...visitors to this country hoping to spend Christmas with their families were treated worse than dogs.

Men and women were segregated, then held for hours for questioning and some...have been locked up...like common criminals.

Can you imagine the outcry if British people on a holiday flight to the Caribbean were treated in the same way?'The incident illustrates a number of uncomfortable issues.

First is the harsh and problematic operation of immigration control.

For the immigrant community, it is a commonplace that family visits involve dealings with a hostile bureaucratic system, but few in the white community have any comprehension of what this means.

Immigration officers interview under the Immigration Rules, which require visitors to show they will leave within a specified period and will not work in the UK.

To assess intention across culture and country is a hard task at best and jet lag, language difficulties and mutual suspicion all foster misunderstanding.Immigration officers look for incentives -- personal or economic -- to return home and, where they are not found, tend to use this as a basis for refusal.

Close family in the UK cuts both ways: it occasions the visit, but also gives an incentive for remaining.

Questions are asked about money, jobs and about the personal, private and sexual life of the UK sponsor (host) as well as the visitor.

It is hard for someone from a poor country to prove an incentive to go home and the refusal rate for Jamaicans is one in 67, as against less than one in 2000 for US citizens.

There is no longer an effective oversight of visit refusals.

Until July l993, visitors had a right of appeal against refusal, and two thirds of the appeals were successful -- showing how often immigration officers drew the wrong conclusions.

Visitor appeal rights have been withdrawn, and the Jamaicans flown home on Christmas Day cannot challenge the decision.

They can seek judicial review -- and leave has been granted in one case -- but the Divisional Court considers only Home Office procedure and not the merits of the decision, and is of little practical use in cases of this type.

Despite Home Office assurances that refusal does not prejudice a future entry application, those whose passports are marked with the cross of refusal have little hope of getting visas in the future, whether to the UK or -- increasingly -- to other European countries.

The impact on families living in different countries is devastating.When strict immigration control was introduced, Parliament was keenly aware of the need to scrutinise Home Office decisions.

An immigration appeals system was created in l969 (on the recommendation of the Wilson committee).

It was felt to be 'fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with the rule of law that power to take decisions affecting a man's whole future should be vested in officers of the executive from whose findings there is no appeal'.

It would also give a private individual 'a sense of protection against oppression and injustice, and of confidence in his dealings with the administration...'The Home Office's mishandling of the Jamaican flight has heightened the lack of confidence in the immigration service.

The need for independent control and oversight becomes more acute as UK immigration control tightens and as national policies are increasingly decided in Brussels, with refusals in one country counting against admission to another.The incident also fuelled speculation that Jamaica will be added to the European Union list of 127 countries whose nationals must have visas to enter any EU member state after l996.

The shift from Commonwealth free movement -- which existed until l962 -- to EU free movement is now complete, and for the new generation of Commonwealth families who are divided by immigration control, the problems can only worsen.