4 SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT applicant applied for judicial review of the decision to detain him, claiming it was contrary to domestic law and Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention. 15. The applicant's asylum claim was initially refused on 8 January. The following day he was released from Oakington and again granted temporary admission pending the determination of his appeal. On 14 January 2003 his appeal was allowed and he was granted asylum. C. The judicial review proceedings 16. In the proceedings for judicial review of the decision to detain the applicant, Collins J on 7 September 2001 (R. (on the application of Saadi and others) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 670) found that the Secretary of State had such a power to detain under the Immigration Act 1971 (see paragraph 19 below). However, relying on the Court's judgment in Amuur v. France, (judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, § 43), and what he considered to be a “sensible reading” of Article 5 § 1(f), he found that it was not permissible under the Convention to detain, solely for purposes of administrative efficiency, an asylum seeker who had followed the proper procedures and presented no risk of absconding. Even if the detention did fall within Article 5 § 1(f), it was disproportionate to detain asylum seekers for the purpose of quickly processing their claims, since it had not been demonstrated that stringent conditions of residence, falling short of 24-hour detention, might not suffice. He also found (as did the Court of Appeal and House of Lords) that the applicant had not been given adequate reasons for his detention. 17. On 19 October 2001 the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned this judgment ([2001] EWCA Civ 1512). Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, who gave the lead judgment, first considered whether the policy of detaining asylum seekers for fast-track processing at Oakington was irrational, such as to render it unlawful under domestic law. He observed that over recent years applications for asylum to the United Kingdom and other countries had been escalating. In the United Kingdom the average monthly number of applications from July to September 1999 was nearly 7,000; 60% higher than the previous year. Coping with huge numbers of asylum seekers posed heavy administrative problems, and it was in the interests of all asylum seekers to have their status determined as quickly as possible. He continued: “We share the doubts expressed by Collins J as to whether detention is really necessary to ensure effective and speedy processing of asylum applications. But in expressing these doubts we ... are indulging in assumption and speculation. It is not in doubt that, if asylum applications are to be processed within the space of seven days, the applicants are necessarily going to have to be subjected to severe restraints on their liberty. In one way or another they will be required to be present in a centre at all times when they may be needed for interviews, which it is impossible to schedule to a