PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 13229/03) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Iraqi national, Mr Shayan Baram Saadi (“the applicant”), on 18 April 2003.

The applicant was represented by Messrs Wilson and Co., solicitors practising in London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant alleged that he had been detained in breach of Article 5 § 1 and Article 14 of the Convention, and that he had not been given adequate reasons for the detention, contrary to Article 5 § 2.

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 27 September 2005 it was declared admissible by a Chamber of that Section composed of Josep Casadevall, Nicolas Bratza, Matti Pellonpää, Rait Maruste, Kristaq Traja, Ljiljana Mijović and Ján Šikuta, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar. On 11 July 2006 a Chamber composed of the same judges, together with Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, delivered a judgment in which it held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 and, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 2. The Chamber further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to consider Article 14 separately, that the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 2 was sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, and that the respondent State should pay the applicant 1,500 euros, plus any tax that might be chargeable, for costs and expenses.

On 11 December 2006, pursuant to a request by the applicant, a panel of the Grand Chamber decided to refer the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.

The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 §§ 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24.

The applicant and the Government each filed their observations on the merits. In addition, third-party comments were received jointly from the AIRE Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and Liberty, and from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2).

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 16 May 2007 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr J. Grainger, Agent, Mr D. Pannick QC, Mr M. Fordham QC, Counsel, Ms N. Samuel, Mr S. Barrett, Advisers. (b) for the applicant Mr R. Scannell, Mr D. Seddon, Counsel, Mr M. Hanley, Ms S. Ghelani, Advisers. The Court heard addresses by Mr Scannell and Mr Pannick, as well as their answers to questions put by Judges Costa and Spielmann.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

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

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.

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 a 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 10 a.m. the following day, 2 January 2001.

B. Detention at Oakington and the asylum proceedings

On this last occasion, when the applicant reported as required, he was detained and transferred to Oakington.

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.

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 seventy-six 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 grounds that it was unlawful. When refused, the 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.

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

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 (25 June 1996, § 43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III), 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 twenty-four 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.

On 19 October 2001 the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned this judgment ([2001] EWCA Civ 1512). Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, 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 pre-determined timetable. Would applicants voluntarily submit to such a regime, if not detained? Many no doubt would, but it is impossible to condemn as irrational the policy of subjecting those asylum-seekers whose applications appear susceptible to rapid resolution to a short period of detention designed to ensure that the regime operates without dislocation. This is not a conclusion that we have reached easily. Asylum-seekers are detained at Oakington only if it seems likely that their applications can be resolved within a week. But they must also be persons who are not expected to attempt to abscond or otherwise misbehave. At first blush it seems extreme to detain those who are unlikely to run away simply to make it easier to process their claims. But the statistics that we have set out at the start of our judgment cannot be ignored. As [the Home Office minister] observed in debate in the House of Lords on 2 November 1999, faced with applications for asylum at the rate of nearly 7,000 per month, ‘no responsible government can simply shrug their shoulders and do nothing’ ... A short period of detention is not an unreasonable price to pay in order to ensure the speedy resolution of the claims of a substantial proportion of this influx. In the circumstances such detention can properly be described as a measure of last resort. ...” The Court of Appeal next considered whether the detention fell within the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f), and held that the right to liberty in Article 5 § 1 (f) was intended to preserve the sovereign power of member States to decide whether to allow aliens to enter their territories on any terms whatsoever and that detention of an alien would be covered by the sub-paragraph unless and until entry was authorised, subject to the proviso, derived from Chahal v. the United Kingdom (15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V) that the asylum or deportation procedure should not be prolonged unreasonably.

On 31 October 2002 the House of Lords unanimously dismissed the applicant’s appeal ([2002] UKHL 41). Having taken note of evidence that the applications of approximately 13,000 asylum-seekers a year were processed at Oakington, which entailed scheduling up to 150 interviews a day, Lord Slynn of Hadley, with whom the other Law Lords agreed, held as follows: “In international law the principle has long been established that sovereign States can regulate the entry of aliens into their territory. ... This principle still applies subject to any treaty obligation of a State or rule of the State’s domestic law which may apply to the exercise of that control. The starting point is thus in my view that the United Kingdom has the right to control the entry and continued presence of aliens in its territory. Article 5 (1) (f) seems to be based on that assumption. The question is therefore whether the provisions of para. 1 (f) so control the exercise of that right that detention for the reasons and in the manner provided for in relation to Oakington are in contravention of the Article so as to make the detention unlawful. ... In my view it is clear that detention to achieve a quick process of decision-making for asylum-seekers is not of itself necessarily and in all cases unlawful. What is said, however is that detention to achieve speedy process ‘for administrative convenience’ is not within para. 1 (f). There must be some other factor which justifies the exercise of the power to detain such as the likelihood of the applicant absconding, committing a crime or acting in ways not conducive to the public good. ... It is ... to be remembered that the power to detain is to ‘prevent’ unauthorised entry. In my opinion until the State has ‘authorised’ entry the entry is unauthorised. The State has power to detain without violating Article 5 until the application has been considered and the entry ‘authorised’. ... There remains the issue whether, even if detention to achieve speedy asylum decision-making does fall within Article 5 (1) (f), ‘detention was unlawful on grounds of being a disproportionate response to the reasonable requirements of immigration control’. ... The need for highly structured and tightly managed arrangements, which would be disrupted by late[ness] or non-attendance of the applicant for interview, is apparent. On the other side applicants not living at Oakington, but living where they chose, would inevitably suffer considerable inconvenience if they had to be available at short notice and continuously in order to answer questions. ... It is regrettable that anyone should be deprived of his liberty other than pursuant to the order of a court but there are situations where such a course is justified. In a situation like the present with huge numbers and difficult decisions involved, with the risk of long delays to applicants seeking to come, a balancing exercise has to be performed. Getting a speedy decision is in the interests not only of the applicants but of those increasingly in the queue. Accepting as I do that the arrangements made at Oakington provide reasonable conditions, both for individuals and families and that the period taken is not in any sense excessive, I consider that the balance is in favour of recognising that detention under the Oakington procedure is proportionate and reasonable. Far from being arbitrary, it seems to me that the Secretary of State has done all that he could be expected to do to palliate the deprivation of liberty of the many applicants for asylum here.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e1
001-84709_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
13229/03
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e2
001-84709_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e3
001-84709_a8_em3
DEM
QUASI
Iraqi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e4
001-84709_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Shayan Baram Saadi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e5
001-84709_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
18 April 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e6
001-84709_a8_em6
ORG
QUASI
Messrs Wilson and Co.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e7
001-84709_a8_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e8
001-84709_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e9
001-84709_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Grainger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e10
001-84709_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e11
001-84709_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
27 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e12
001-84709_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Josep Casadevall
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e13
001-84709_a8_em13
PERSON
QUASI
Nicolas Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e14
001-84709_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Matti Pellonpää
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e15
001-84709_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Rait Maruste
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e16
001-84709_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Kristaq Traja
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e17
001-84709_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Ljiljana Mijović
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e18
001-84709_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Ján Šikuta
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e19
001-84709_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Françoise Elens-Passos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e20
001-84709_a8_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
11 July 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e21
001-84709_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Lawrence Early
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e22
001-84709_a8_em22
QUANTITY
QUASI
1,500 euros
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e23
001-84709_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
11 December 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e24
001-84709_a8_em24
ORG
QUASI
AIRE Centre
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e25
001-84709_a8_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
European Council on Refugees and Exiles
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-84709_a8_e26
001-84709_a8_em26
ORG
QUASI
Liberty
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-84709_a8_e27
001-84709_a8_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e28
001-84709_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
16 May 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e9
001-84709_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Grainger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e29
001-84709_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Pannick QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e30
001-84709_a8_em31
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Fordham QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e31
001-84709_a8_em32
PERSON
QUASI
Ms N. Samuel
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e32
001-84709_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Barrett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e33
001-84709_a8_em34
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Scannell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e34
001-84709_a8_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Seddon
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e35
001-84709_a8_em36
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Hanley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e36
001-84709_a8_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Ms S. Ghelani
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e37
001-84709_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Scannell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e38
001-84709_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Pannick
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e39
001-84709_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e40
001-84709_a8_em41
PERSON
QUASI
Spielmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e3
001-84709_a8_em42
DEM
QUASI
Iraqi
ETHNIC
correct
001-84709_a8_e41
001-84709_a8_em43
DEM
QUASI
Kurd
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e42
001-84709_a8_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e43
001-84709_a8_em45
DEM
QUASI
doctor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e7
001-84709_a8_em46
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e44
001-84709_a8_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e45
001-84709_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e46
001-84709_a8_em49
LOC
QUASI
Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e43
001-84709_a8_em50
DEM
QUASI
doctor
POLITICS
correct
001-84709_a8_e47
001-84709_a8_em51
DEM
QUASI
Iraqi Workers’ Communist Party
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e48
001-84709_a8_em52
LOC
QUASI
Heathrow Airport
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e49
001-84709_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
30 December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em54
LOC
QUASI
001-84709_a8_em55
Oakington Reception Centre
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em55
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e51
001-84709_a8_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
31 December 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e52
001-84709_a8_em57
DATETIME
NO_MASK
10 a.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e53
001-84709_a8_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
2 January 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em59
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em60
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em61
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e54
001-84709_a8_em62
DATETIME
QUASI
4 January 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em63
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e55
001-84709_a8_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
Refugee Legal Centre
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e56
001-84709_a8_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Home Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e57
001-84709_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
5 January 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e58
001-84709_a8_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
seventy-six hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e3
001-84709_a8_em68
DEM
QUASI
Iraqi
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em69
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e56
001-84709_a8_em70
ORG
NO_MASK
Home Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e59
001-84709_a8_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
8 January
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em72
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e60
001-84709_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
14 January 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e61
001-84709_a8_em74
PERSON
QUASI
Collins J
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e62
001-84709_a8_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
7 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e63
001-84709_a8_em76
MISC
QUASI
R. (on the application of Saadi and others) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 670
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e64
001-84709_a8_em77
MISC
NO_MASK
Amuur v. France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e65
001-84709_a8_em78
DATETIME
NO_MASK
25 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e66
001-84709_a8_em79
DATETIME
QUASI
twenty-four hour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e67
001-84709_a8_em80
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e68
001-84709_a8_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e69
001-84709_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
19 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e67
001-84709_a8_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e70
001-84709_a8_em84
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em85
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e44
001-84709_a8_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e44
001-84709_a8_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e71
001-84709_a8_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
July to September 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e61
001-84709_a8_em89
PERSON
QUASI
Collins J
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e72
001-84709_a8_em90
DATETIME
QUASI
seven days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em91
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e56
001-84709_a8_em92
ORG
NO_MASK
Home Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e68
001-84709_a8_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e73
001-84709_a8_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
2 November 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e67
001-84709_a8_em95
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e74
001-84709_a8_em96
MISC
NO_MASK
Chahal v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e75
001-84709_a8_em97
DATETIME
NO_MASK
15 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e76
001-84709_a8_em98
DATETIME
QUASI
31 October 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e68
001-84709_a8_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e77
001-84709_a8_em100
DATETIME
QUASI
2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e78
001-84709_a8_em101
MISC
QUASI
UKHL 41
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em102
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-84709_a8_e79
001-84709_a8_em103
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Slynn of Hadley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e80
001-84709_a8_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
Law Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e44
001-84709_a8_em105
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em106
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em107
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em108
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-84709_a8_e50
001-84709_a8_em109
LOC
QUASI
Oakington
Shayan Baram Saadi
GBR
GRANDCHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Shayan Baram Saadi