Government wins appeal to block closure of Epping asylum hotel as council declares 'battle is not over'

Epping Forest District Council had been granted an interim injunction by the High Court, stopping the hotel’s owner, Somani Hotels, from using the hotel to accommodate asylum seekers beyond September 12.

The Home Office and Somani Hotels had been seeking to challenge this with a decision in a bid to avoid similar legal challenges across the country.

And following today's ruling, asylum seekers will now be allowed to stay in Epping's Bell Hotel beyond the previously given September 12 deadline.

Read more: Immigration removal centre told to axe job advert teaching balloon craft and flower arranging

Today's decision comes after a string of anti-immigration protests outside the site, which first broke out after an asylum seeker staying there, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl last month.

The ruling will come as a relief to the Home Office, which had been braced for further legal challenges from other councils over the use of hotels in their areas.

Giving a summary of their ruling, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said: “We conclude that the judge made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision.”

He continued: “The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”

He added that such an injunction “may incentivise” other councils to take similar steps as Epping Forest District Council.

He said: “The potential cumulative impact of such ad-hoc applications was a material consideration… that was not considered by the judge.”

He added the debate over the Epping hotel must stay focused on the local issues, rather than Government policy

He said: “We should say at the outset what this appeal is not about.

“It is not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise.”

He described providing accommodation for asylum seekers as a "national issue."

He said: "Ad hoc interim injunction applications seeking closure of particular sights may each have some individual merits but the judges' approach ignores the obvious consequence.

"The closure of one site means that capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system and may incentivise local planning authorities who wish to remove asylum accommodation from their area to apply to the court urgently before capacity elsewhere in the system becomes exhausted."

Yesterday, dozens of demonstrators attempted to storm past officers and enter the controversial hotel at the centre of the High Court case.

Chants of "send them back" and "go home" were heard as they marched through the streets waving England flags – with some wearing face coverings.

"We are so angry. We won't stop," one protester said.

Speaking outside court following today's decision, Epping Councillor Ken Williamson said they brought this case forward out of care for "the wellbeing of our local residents".

"Where we had clarity and resolution, we now have doubt and confusion," he said.

"This is not the end of the matter.

"While the Court of Appeal has lifted the temporary injunction, the case for the final injunction is still to be heard."Our battle on behalf of our residents will continue."

Responding to today’s ruling, Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister for Border Security and Asylum, said: “We inherited a chaotic asylum accommodation system costing billions. This government will close all hotels by the end of this Parliament and we appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day.

“The number of hotels has almost halved since its peak in 2023 and we have brought down costs by 15% saving £700m and putting us on track to save a billion pounds a year by 2028-29.

“We are also working hard to relieve pressure on the system and striking back at criminal people smuggling gangs at every stage, including returning more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here, equipping law enforcement with counter-terror style powers and starting to detain small boat arrivals under our groundbreaking deal with France.

“It will take some time to fix the broken system we inherited, but the British public deserve nothing less, and we will not stop until the job is done.”

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch slammed the decision, writing: "Local communities should not pay the price for Labour's total failure on illegal immigration.

"Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities."

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also criticised the decision, claiming the Government had “used ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) against the people of Epping”.

He added: “Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.”

Tory MP and Shadow Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick, described today's ruling as "extremely disappointing."

Taking to X, he wrote: "This is an extremely disappointing decision.

"Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.

"The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the 'national interest.'

"In court, they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people. Well, they are not. The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first.

"Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our country."