Duran Seddon KC practises in immigration, human rights and public & social welfare law.
He acts for clients at all levels, from senior political and business figures to impoverished Chagos Islanders seeking residence and support in the UK.
Immigration Law
Over the years, Duran has been involved in a range of high profile, significant cases including Onibiyo (the first major asylum 'fresh claim' case and the first return to Nigeria following the execution of the Delta campaigners); the 'Oakington Detention Centre' case; the long-running Afghan / Stansted 'hi-jack' case; Singh & Singh (first SIAC asylum case); Huang & Kashmiri (leading article 8 case); EB (Kosovo) (leading case on article 8 and delay).
Duran has been instructed to assist, advise and represent in cases involving senior political and or business figures from (among others): Russia, the republics of the former Soviet Union, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Egypt, India, Kenya, Nigeria and countries of the Middle East, who have been subject to politically motivated prosecution for alleged offences of fraud and corruption.
Duran has been instructed in cases at all levels from the first instance up to the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.
Notable Immigration Cases
MF (Nigeria) -v- SSHD [2014] 1 WLR 544 (article 8 / criminal deportation) (test case)
Hesham Ali -v- SSHD [2016] 1 WLR 4799 (article 8 / criminal deportation), Supreme Court
Safi (Permission to appeal) [2019] Imm AR 437 (test case on last-minute representations and obtaining interim relief by way of stays against removal)
SB (Afghanistan) [2018] 1 WLR 4457, [2018] EWCA Civ 215 (test case on last-minute representations and obtaining interim relief by way of stays against removal)
Cheryl Ribeli -v- ECO [2018] EWCA Civ 611 (one of the leading cases on adult dependent relatives following change to the Immigration Rules)
R (BritCits) v SSHD [2017] 1 WLR 3345 (Court of Appeal test case on a challenge to the ADR rules)
ST & ET -v- SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 188 (UNHCR designated 'mandate' refugees)
GS (India) & Others -v- SSHD [2015] 1 WLR 3312 (test case on risks to health / article 3)
R (MS) -v- SSHD [2015] EWHC 1095 (Admin) (test case, 'third country' Dublin returns)
R (Ivlev) -v- ECO, New York [2013] EWHC 1162 (Admin) ('non-conducive' US exclusion)
MS (Palestinian Territories) -v- SSHD [2010] UKSC 25, [2010] INLR 475 (Supreme Court)
Jurisdiction of the AIT in case involving an immigration 'decision to remove' where removal not legally feasible pursuant to Schedule 2 1971 Act.
Huang & Kashmiri -v- SSHD [2007] UKHL; [2007] 2 AC 167 (HL)
Approach of the Court to the Strasbourg concept of 'proportionality' and the intensity with which the Court must conduct its review of executive decisions in this area. The immediate context was Article 8(2) ECHR and the question whether 'true exceptionality' was the proper bench-mark before the immigration appellate authorities.
Saadi -v- UK, Applcn No 13229/03, 29 January 2008 (Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights)
This case had previously been determined in the High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords (as well as the first Chamber of the ECtHR) and was a challenge to the Oakington Detention Centre regime - the flagship fast-track asylum processing centre - by which asylum seekers are detained for the administrative purpose of determining their claims.
F (Mongolia) -v- (1) AIT; (2) SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 769 [2007] 1 WLR 2523, Times 28 August 2007 (CA)
Intervention by the Public Law Project to challenge to the regime of statutory review whereby immigration applicants are prevented from access to the High Court by way of judicial review.
EB (Kosovo) -v- SSHD [2008] UKHL 41, [2008] 3 178 (HL)
The issue before their Lordships was the effect of Home Office administrative delays in decision-making in asylum claims with the result that the applicant puts down roots in the UK and established family and private life connections here under Art 8 ECHR. In May 2008, the House of Lords gave judgment for the appellant (EB).
R (S) -v- SSHD [2005] INLR 575 (Admin Court and CA)
The 'Afghan Hi-jackers' case: policy of Secretary of State to deny leave to asylum seekers successful in ECHR claim and to leave them in legal limbo was outwith the powers of the Immigration Act 1971.
R v SSHD ex parte Onibiyo [1996] QB 768 CA
The foundation case establishing the concept of 'fresh' asylum claim and setting down the criteria making a fresh claim which was subsequently written into the Immigration Rules.
R v Radiom & Shingara [1997] ECR I-3341 ECJ
Legal remedies under Council Directive (EEC) 64/221 for those excluded from reliance on EU rights of free movement
R v SSHD ex parte Mersin [2000] INLR 511
Principles relating to prejudicial delay in issuing immigration status papers.
Contact Duran
Public Law, Social Welfare Law, Education and Human Rights
Duran has a strong background in public law, social welfare law and human rights. He has, for example, appeared in cases involving the HRA compatibility of the use of restraints on children in training centres and in cases involving social security, social care and education.
Many of his cases have involved access to services for the migrant community.
Notable Cases in Public Law, Social Welfare Law and Human Rights
Holub v SSHD [2001] 1 WLR 1359 CA
Right to education under Article 2, First Protocol ECHR and extra-territoriality of ECHR.
R (AC, by his litigation friend) -v- Secretary of State for Justice [2009] 1 QB 657
The Court of Appeal quashed the Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007 which added to the criteria upon which physical restraint/removal from association can be used on children in secure training centres, that such powers could be triggered in order to ensure "good order and discipline". The Rules were quashed on the grounds that the Secretary of State had failed to consult the Children's Commissioner, or conduct a race equality impact assessment. In addition, the Court of Appeal held that the Rules were in violation of Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
Szoma -v- Secretary of State for Department for Work and Pensions [2006] 1 AC 564) (House of Lords)
Asylum-seekers in the UK with temporary admission were 'lawfully present' under the relevant Income Support Regulations, themselves based on obligations under the Council of Europe Social Charter and the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance.
R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] 5 CCLR 487
Access to s.21 1948 Act support; first instance.
R (Anufrijeva, Mambakasa) v SSHD [2004] QB 1124
Test case on principles relating to damages for breaches of human rights, in particular Article 8 ECHR.
R (Alexis, Anamaly & Naraina) v West Sussex County Council
Citizenship under British Overseas Territories Act 2002 and claims to community care support against local authority.
R v Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust Ex p. Reffell [2001] 4 C.C.L. Rep. 159
Access to healthcare by overseas visitor and statutory power to seek advance payments for the same.
Zakir Naik v SSHD [2012] Imm AR 381, [2011] EWCA Civ 1546
Right to freedom of expression: art 10 ECHR.
