Asylum-seekers allowed to stay in UK hotel on appeal

MANCHESTER, England (CN) — Asylum-seekers ordered out of a British hotel under a High Court ruling earlier this month can remain after the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction on Friday.

A three-judge Court of Appeal panel said the initial injunction failed to take into account arguments by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who has a legal duty to make sure that asylum-seekers are housed.

Lord Justice David Bean, reading out the panel’s judgement, said the High Court’s decision made a number of errors that undermined the decision to remove 138 asylum-seekers from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, near London.

The appeal court said that while local residents’ concerns were properly balanced, the High Court ruling on Epping Forest District Council’s case placed too much weight on the protests outside the hotel. Bean called this one of the “worrying aspects” of the case.

The judge warned that if the threat of protest was treated as grounds to block asylum hotels, “this runs the risk of acting as an impetus or incentive for further protests” at other hotels. That, he said, carried “a risk of encouraging further lawlessness.”

The High Court ruling followed weeks of protest outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, where thousands of people gathered after an asylum-seeker living in the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in the town.

The hotel has been the site of major demonstrations, where far-right groups have joined local protests and clashed with police. Two men have pleaded guilty to violent disorder, while others face charges of assaulting officers and criminal damage.

The judge also underlined the government’s legal responsibilities. “The Home Secretary has clear statutory duties to asylum-seekers under 1999 legislation,” he said. “These include a duty to provide support to them and prevent destitution.”

Bean outlined a range of issues that would have emerged for the home secretary, including the “significant practical challenge of relocating a large number of asylum-seekers in a short space of time.”

The ruling is likely to make it difficult for other local councils to follow Epping Forest’s legal route to ban asylum hotels.

Local authorities in Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire said they were weighing options after the initial ruling, echoing concerns that asylum hotels are fueling local tensions.

Further anti-immigration protests appeared last night outside the Bell Hotel, with dozens of marchers taking to the streets, many wearing hoods, face coverings and waving English flags.

Elon Musk weighed in on X, branding the Home Office’s appeal as “a government against its people.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called the Court of Appeal’s overturn of the ruling a “setback,” adding that Prime Minister Keir Starmer “puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of the British people.”

Since taking office last year, the Labour government has cut the number of hotels used for asylum-seekers from 400 in 2023 to 210, and plans to phase them out entirely by 2029.

The dispute over the Bell Hotel will return to the High Court in October, when a final judgement on Epping Forest District Council’s claim is expected.

Until then, the 138 asylum-seekers can remain at the hotel.

The October hearing could set a wider precedent for councils across England seeking to challenge the government’s use of asylum hotels, even as the government continues to wind down their use.

Courthouse News reporter James Francis Whitehead is based in England.

Follow @jayfranklinlive