The 1954 Convention does not make specific provision in respect of the detention of stateless persons, although Article 26 relating to freedom of movement has been cited as providing some potentially relevant obligations.342 This provision, however, is not incorporated into UK domestic law. Domestic law and policy The Immigration Act 1971 contains provisions which give immigration officers and the Secretary of State for the Home Department the power to detain those subject to immigration control who are liable to examination, administrative removal or deportation.343 Immigration detention is administrative and does not require prior judicial authorization. There is no mandatory judicial scrutiny of the lawfulness or appropriateness of detention. Those detained under the powers in the Immigration Act 1971 may apply to an Immigration Officer for temporary admission or release, and can apply for a Chief Immigration Officer or to an Immigration Judge for bail. Further, the legality of any detention can be challenged by way of application to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus or Judicial Review. The evidence of the participants in the research indicates that stateless and “unreturnable” persons are most likely to be detained under immigration powers for the purposes of their removal or deportation.344 The statutory power to detain in these circumstances is regulated by the common law. The Hardial Singh345 principles set out the nature of that regulation. They have been summarised by the Court of Appeal as follows: (i) The Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose; (ii) The deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances; (iii) If, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within a reasonable period, he should not seek to exercise the power of detention; and, (iv) The Secretary of State should act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.346 342 UNHCR The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and ‘Alternatives to Detention’ of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Stateless Persons and Other Migrants, op. cit., pp.13-17. 343 See Immigration Act 1971, Schedules 2 and 3. 344 Participants 4, 7, 19, 31 and 35 were detained for the purposes of administrative removal and participants 13, 14, 18, 24, 25 and 26 were detained for the purposes of deportation. 345 These were set out in R v. Governor of Durham Prison, Ex parte Hardial Singh, [1984] 1 All ER 983, [1984] 1 WLR 704, [1983] Imm AR 198, United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales), 13 December 1983, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b6ce1c.html, per Woolf, J. 346 R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888, [2003] INLR 196, para. 46, recently approved by the majority of the Supreme Court in Walumba Lumba (previously referred to as WL) (Congo) 1 and 2 (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent); Kadian Mighty (previously referred to as KM) (Jamaica) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent), op. cit. in the United Kingdom 107