European Court rejects refugee's detention claim against the UK

The European Court of Human Rights has turned down an application filed by an Iraqi refugee against the British government over its routine detention of asylum seekers in so-called fast-track removal centres.

The case could have had repercussions on the Maltese detention policy had it been upheld.

Kurdish Iraqi Shayan Baram Saadi, who had been granted asylum in the UK, immediately claimed asylum upon arrival at Heathrow on December 30, 2000 and was granted temporary admission. He cooperated with the authorities but was subsequently detained at the Oakington Reception Centre, a new detention facility for asylum seekers considered unlikely to abscond and to whom a "fast-track" procedure could be applied.

After originally having been denied asylum, he successfully appealed and was granted refugee status in January 2003.

Dr Saadi initiated a seven-year long legal battle against his detention, that really lasted seven days, and the fact that he was not given a justification until 76 hours after he had been sent to Oakington.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights confirmed by 11 votes to six a sentence by a first court that had ruled against Dr Saadi's claim that his right to liberty under the European Convention of Human Rights had been breached.

The court however upheld unanimously the claim that his right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest had been breached.

In its sentence, the Grand Chamber noted that while the general rule set out in article 5 of the Convention was that everyone had the right to liberty, the same article did provide an exception, allowing states to control the liberty of aliens in an immigration context.

It did not accept, as Dr Saadi claimed, that as soon as an asylum seeker had surrendered himself to the immigration authorities he was seeking to effect an "authorised" entry, with the result that detention could not be justified under the first part of article 5.

The court concluded that, given the difficult administrative problems with which the United Kingdom was confronted during the period in question, with an escalating flow of huge numbers of asylum seekers, it was not incompatible with article 5 to detain the applicant for seven days in suitable conditions to enable his claim to asylum to be processed speedily.

A positive ruling would have dealt a serious blow to the UK government's policy for the speedy removal of failed asylum-seekers and, possibly, even have had repercussions on Malta's detention policy.