SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 17 46. It was plain that in the present case the applicant's detention at Oakington was a bona fide application of the policy on “fast-track” immigration decisions. As to the question of arbitrariness, the Chamber noted that the applicant was released once his asylum claim had been refused, leave to enter the United Kingdom had been refused, and he had submitted a notice of appeal. The detention lasted a total of seven days, which the Court found not to be excessive in the circumstances. It therefore found no violation of Article 5 § 1. 2. The parties' submissions a) The Government 47. Before the Grand Chamber the Government emphasised several factual aspects of the case. First, the applicant had been detained for only seven days, in a relaxed regime, with access to legal advice and other facilities at the Centre. Secondly, in common with all others detained at the Centre, the applicant was seeking authorisation to enter the United Kingdom on the basis of asylum and human rights grounds, under the Refugee Convention (see paragraph 33 above) and the European Convention on Human Rights. The fact that he had earlier been granted temporary admission for a short period, as an alternative to detention, did not affect his position as a person requiring authorisation to effect entry into the country. Third, he was detained to enable speedy examination of his claim and a quick decision as to whether to give or refuse leave to enter. The domestic courts had referred to the increasingly high numbers of individuals seeking asylum in the United Kingdom at the time of the applicant's detention (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above) and had recognised that the Oakington system was central to the Government's procedure for processing such applications fairly and without undue delay. 48. The Government reasoned that the phrase “to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry” was describing the factual situation that the person was seeking to effect an entry, but had no authorisation. Article 5 § 1(f) recognised that there might be detention in conjunction with the State's deciding whether or not to grant authorisation, in the exercise of its sovereign role to control the entry into, and presence of aliens in its territory; a role which, as the national courts had observed, had long been recognised by international law. 49. The Government relied on Chahal v. the United Kingdom (cited in paragraph 17 above, § 112), where the Grand Chamber had held, in connection with the second limb of Article 5 § 1(f), that “Article 5 § 1(f) does not demand that the detention of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation be reasonably considered necessary, for example to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing ...”. They argued that there was no good reason for distinguishing between the two limbs of