SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 19 preventing the individual effecting an unauthorised entry. It was not, however, permissible under Article 5 § 1(f) to detain someone purely for administrative convenience. 52. The applicant referred to the Court's case-law under other subparagraphs of Article 5 § 1, requiring an objective need for the detention of the particular individual to be demonstrated, and to the case-law of the Human Rights Committee (see paragraph 31 above), and reasoned that similar principles should apply under Article 5 § 1(f). Although the Court in Chahal v. the United Kingdom (cited above) did not require a necessity test in respect of Mr Chahal's detention under the second part of Article 5 § 1(f), there was good reason for distinguishing between the two limbs. First, as was clear from paragraph 112 of the Chahal judgment, the contrast made with the other sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1 was based on the language of the provision under which Mr Chahal was detained, which required only that “action [was] being taken with a view to deportation”, whereas the first limb of Article 5 § 1(f) stipulated that detention had to be for the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry. Secondly, on the facts of the Chahal case, it was evident that release on bail would have been inappropriate since it was alleged that Mr Chahal constituted a national security threat. In contrast, a necessity test should apply to those like the present applicant who “have [not] committed criminal offences but ... who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country” (Amuur, cited above, § 43). 53. In common with all other Oakington detainees, the applicant had been assessed as presenting no risk of absconding, and the sole purpose of the deprivation of liberty was to enable a quick decision to be made on his asylum claim. This was a manifestly insufficient reason for the purposes of Article 5 § 1(f), which required that there be a risk, in the particular case, of the subject making an unauthorised entry into the country. Detention at Oakington was not proportionate, since no lesser measure (for example, an accommodation centre) had first been tried. Moreover there was evidence to suggest that the decision to opt for detention at Oakington was led by the reaction of local residents and planning committees rather than a clear need for detention to enable speedy processing of asylum applications. 3. The third parties' submissions a) UNHCR 54. UNHCR was concerned that the Chamber judgment, which (1) assimilated the position of asylum seekers to ordinary immigrants, (2) considered that an asylum seeker effectively had no lawful or authorised status prior to the successful determination of the claim and (3) rejected the application of a necessity test to the question whether detention was arbitrary, permitted States to detain asylum seekers on grounds of