Saadi & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The House of Lords held that short-term detention of asylum applicants at the Oakington Reception Centre under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 was lawful and compatible with Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. The court treated detention "pending examination and pending a decision" as within the statutory power so long as the period of detention is reasonable in all the circumstances. It accepted that Article 5(1)(f) covers detention to prevent unauthorised entry until the State has authorised entry and that Article 5(1)(f) does not, as a matter of Convention law, require a separate necessity test for such detention (relying on Chahal v United Kingdom). The Lords emphasised that the power must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily and that proportionality and reasonable time limits constrain detention; the short periods of detention in these cases were not excessive. The failure to give precisely the correct reasons on the IS91R forms was unfortunate but did not affect the lawfulness of detention.

The appellants were four Kurdish Iraqis who sought asylum in the United Kingdom and were detained at Oakington Reception Centre under the Government's fast-track asylum procedures. Their periods of detention ranged from seven to ten days. They challenged the lawfulness of their detention, arguing both under domestic immigration law (Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971) and under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights that detention at Oakington was unlawful because it was not necessary, could have been replaced by temporary admission, and in any event was disproportionate.

Procedural posture: At first instance Collins J held the detention unlawful. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision ([2002] 1 WLR 356). The case came to the House of Lords on appeal.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: Applicants sought declaratory relief that their detention at Oakington was unlawful and an order for release.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 permitted detention of asylum seekers for the purpose of fast-track examination and decision, and if so whether that detention must be shown to be "necessary" in the sense that no alternative (for example temporary admission) would suffice.
• Whether detention of the appellants at Oakington was compatible with Article 5(1)(f) ECHR, including whether Article 5(1)(f) requires a separate necessity test and whether detention was proportionate and non-arbitrary.
• Whether defects in the stated reasons for detention on the IS91R forms vitiated the lawfulness of detention.

Reasoning and outcome: The Law Lords concluded that paragraph 16 empowers detention "pending examination and pending a decision" and that such detention must be reasonable in duration; it is not confined to cases where detention is shown strictly to be necessary because the person might abscond. The court held that Article 5(1)(f) covers detention to prevent unauthorised entry until the State has authorised entry, and that the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence (notably Chahal) does not import a separate necessity requirement into Article 5(1)(f). Detention for a short period in humane physical conditions, where the selection of cases is aimed at those suitable for speedy decision and subject to review safeguards, was not arbitrary or disproportionate in the present circumstances. The Lords accepted that the reasons given on the IS91R forms were inappropriate but considered that this did not invalidate the detention. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that detention under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 for the purpose of rapid consideration of asylum claims at Oakington fell within Article 5(1)(f) ECHR and was lawful and proportionate in the circumstances of these cases. Detention must be reasonable in duration and not arbitrary, but Article 5(1)(f) does not require a separate necessity test that no less intrusive measure would suffice. Defects in the wording of the detention forms did not render the detention unlawful.

Collins J (first instance) held detention unlawful. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed Collins J: [2002] 1 WLR 356. The decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed by the House of Lords ([2002] UKHL 41).