The charity Detention Action had challenged the lawfulness of detaining asylum-seekers during their appeals purely on the grounds that their claims could be processed quickly.  Detention Action argued that asylum-seekers who are found to pose no risk of absconding should be released while their appeals are processed.

The Court of Appeal upheld Detention Action's appeal on the grounds that the policy on detaining asylum seekers during their appeals is not sufficiently clear and transparent. Further, the Court made an alternative finding that, on the material before it, the policy is not justified.  Lord Justice Beatson found that: "after the Secretary of State's decision and pending appeal, detention in the fast-track by the application of the "quick processing" criteria cannot be said to be justified and is therefore not lawful". That the evidence before the court: "does not provide the sort of substantial fact-based justification that the Supreme CourtŠ  indicated would be needed to justify an interference with a fundamental right."

The Home Office has indicated that it has begun re-assessing the detention of all asylum appellants currently going through the Fast Track.  It has indicated that it will assess all asylum appellants on the Fast Track, and release all who are not at risk of absconding. It expects to have made those decisions by 19 December 2014.

Detention Action's Director Jerome Phelps said: "We welcome this judgment.   Depriving someone of their liberty for administrative convenience is a grave step under any circumstances.  Asylum seekers making appeals are in a situation of enormous stress.  Where there is no risk that they will abscond, keeping them locked up cannot be justified.  Given that the Fast Track has now twice been found to be operating unlawfully, we urge the government to undertake a fundamental review of the whole process."

Sonal Ghelani of the Migrants' Law Project, the solicitor acting for Detention Action, said: "It appears that the Home Office has been detaining asylum seekers unlawfully for their appeals for the last six years.  It cannot be right or fair that the Home Secretary, as a party to an appeal, is entitled to detain her opponent when the effect of detention is to make the appellant's conduct of the appeal much more difficult and therefore to make it less likely that he or she will be successful."

Detention Action - 20 Years Supporting People in Detention & Campaigning for Change