SAADI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 3 THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9. The applicant, an Iraqi Kurd, was born in 1976 and now lives and works as a doctor in London. A. The applicant's temporary admission to the United Kingdom 10. In December 2000 the applicant fled the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq when, in the course of his duties as a hospital doctor, he treated and facilitated the escape of three fellow members of the Iraqi Workers' Communist Party who had been injured in an attack. He arrived at Heathrow airport on 30 December 2000 and immediately claimed asylum. 11. The immigration officer contacted the Oakington Reception Centre (“Oakington”: see paragraphs 23-25 below), but there was no immediate room there, so the applicant was granted “temporary admission” (see paragraphs 20-21 below) to stay at the hotel of his choice and return to the airport the following morning. On 31 December 2000 he reported as required and was again granted temporary admission until the following day. When the applicant again reported as required he was, for the third time, granted temporary admission, until the following day, 2 January 2001 at 10.00 a.m. B. Detention at Oakington and the asylum proceedings 12. On this last occasion, when the applicant reported as required, he was detained and transferred to Oakington. 13. When being taken into detention, the applicant was handed a standard form, “Reasons for Detention and Bail Rights”, indicating that detention was used only where there was no reasonable alternative, and setting out a list of reasons such as risk of absconding, with boxes to be ticked by the immigration officer where appropriate. The form did not include an option indicating the possibility of detention for fast-track processing at Oakington. 14. On 4 January 2001 the applicant met at Oakington with a lawyer from the Refugee Legal Centre, who contacted the Home Office to enquire why the applicant was being detained and to request his release. On 5 January 2001, when the applicant had been detained for 76 hours, the lawyer was informed over the telephone by an immigration officer that the applicant was being detained because he was an Iraqi who fulfilled the Oakington criteria. The lawyer then wrote to the Home Office requesting the applicant's release on the ground that it was unlawful. When refused, the