Police are braced for further anti-migrant protests after judges revoked a ban on housing asylum seekers at an Essex hotel that has been plagued by unrest.
Court of Appeal judges ruled that the closure of The Bell Hotel in Epping would have “obvious consequences” on the government’s duty to house asylum seekers and would “incentivise” other councils to seek similar legal action if allowed.
Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) sought an injunction against the use of the hotel for migrants after a series of violent protests at the site, sparked by the arrest of a resident over alleged sexual offences.
But in a definitive win for the Home Office on Friday, the Court of Appeal found that High Court judge Mr Justice Eyre made a series of errors when he granted the injunction, which would have seen all 138 asylum seekers housed there removed by 12 September.
Essex Police had officers stationed at the hotel after the judgment was delivered and is understood to have a significant policing plan in place in case the ruling sparks further unrest. Meanwhile, Assistant Chief Constable Arman Mathieson, of Gloucestershire Police, said that force was “well prepared” for rallies in its area.
Anti-racism counter-protesters were preparing to mobilise against anti-migrant rallies planned in 23 locations across the UK over the weekend.
Demonstrations are planned for Cheshunt, Bournemouth, and Chichester on Friday evening, as well as in Cardiff, Oldham, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Gloucester, Canary Wharf and Crawley across Saturday and Sunday.
Police officers prepare for a demonstration outside the Bell Hotel in Epping. (PA)
Leader of EFDC, Chris Whitbread, called for calm following the ruling, saying: “There’s been peaceful protests and there’s been non-peaceful protests outside the hotel. You saw that as part of our case, but I just call for residents to be calm.” He said he was “really concerned for the future of the town”.
The council vowed to continue its legal fight, with a final injunction hearing to take place in October, and said it would rule nothing out “including the Supreme Court”. It urged the government to “take responsibility for the events that have taken place in Epping over the past six weeks”.
Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle MP said that ministers had sought to appeal the injunction so that hotels could be “exited in a controlled and orderly way”. But shadow home secretary Chris Philp accused Labour of “using the courts against the British public”.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called on Conservative councils to continue to seek similar injunctions against hotels in their areas, with several already confirming they would take legal action.
Reform’s Nigel Farage responded to the news, saying: “Illegal migrants have more rights than British people under Starmer.”
The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, had argued at the Court of Appeal that the Epping hotel injunction should not stand because it would disrupt her statutory duty to house vulnerable asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute.
Protesters outside the Bell Hotel in July (PA)
In written arguments, the Home Office said that “the relevant public interests in play are not equal”, seeking to contrast the disruption in Epping with the wider impact on the government’s need to house asylum seekers.
In their judgment, Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said this comparison “about a hierarchy of rights” was “unattractive”.
However, they agreed that High Court judge had failed to consider “the significant practical challenge of relocating a large number of asylum seekers in a short space of time”.
Somani Hotels Ltd, which owns The Bell Hotel, said it had been “caught in the middle of a much wider debate on the treatment of asylum seekers” and asked that “all associated with The Bell Hotel are left alone to continue to support the government’s asylum plans as best they can”.
Shane Yerrell, Tory councillor for EFDC, said the government should “hang their heads in shame”.
Seeking to lift the ban, Home Office lawyers said that maintaining the injunction would risk more disorder. They also argued that “the available asylum estate is subject to incredibly high levels of demand”, and that the loss of 152 bed spaces if the Epping hotel was closed would lead to “considerable difficulties”.
Staffordshire County Council, which has previously threatened to bring similar legal action over the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, said Friday’s ruling “disregards the impact on communities and services across our county and the country”.
Protesters with Stand Up To Racism gather outside an asylum hotel in central London (PA)
The latest Home Office data shows there were 32,059 asylum seekers in UK hotels at the end of June.
This was up from 29,585 at the same point a year earlier, when the Conservatives were still in power, but down slightly on the 32,345 figure at the end of March.
The appeal by the hotel owners and the Home Office comes in the same week as a resident at the hotel, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, has been on trial accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl last month.
Protesters call for the closure of The Bell Hotel in early August (AFP/Getty)
Kebatu, who denies the charges, told Colchester Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday that he did not attempt to kiss the girl because he is “not a wild animal”.
Another man who was living at the site, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences.
Police have arrested 25 people in relation to disorder at protests at the Epping hotel, with 16 charged with criminal offences.
