Epping hotel asylum seekers to remain at the Bell, court rules

A short lived injunction that blocked asylum seekers being housed at an Essex resort has been overturned on the Courtroom of Attraction.

Attorneys for The Bell Lodge in Epping and the federal government challenged a High Court ruling that would have forced 138 asylum seekers to depart the location by 12 September.

Overturning the injunction, Lord Justice Bean mentioned the Excessive Courtroom ruling was “critically flawed in precept”.

Epping Forest District Council, which obtained the preliminary injunction, mentioned “the battle was not over”.

The House Workplace has braced itself for a wave of legal challenges from other councils over the usage of accommodations of their areas, fearing Epping’s victory would set a precedent.

However Lord Justice Bean mentioned the Excessive Courtroom ruling by Mr Justice Eyre failed to contemplate the challenges of relocating the migrants.

“The decide’s method ignores the apparent consequence that the closure of 1 website means capability must be recognized elsewhere within the system,” he mentioned, studying the ruling made by him and two different Courtroom of Attraction judges.

Reacting to the newest ruling, Conservative chief Kemi Badenoch mentioned it “places the rights of unlawful immigrants above the rights of the British individuals”.

A full Excessive Courtroom listening to to resolve on a everlasting injunction for the Bell is anticipated in mid-October.

1000’s of individuals have attended anti-immigration protests and counter-demonstrations exterior The Bell Lodge since July.

It adopted an asylum seeker housed there being arrested and subsequently charged with a number of offences together with the sexually assault of a 14-year-old woman.

Hadush Kebatu, who’s from Ethiopia, denies the offences and has been on trial.

The protests acted as a set off for the council to use for an injunction, its authorized group mentioned in court docket.

Lord Justice Bean mentioned this was “worrying”, including: “If an outbreak of protest enhances a case, this runs the chance of appearing as an impetus for additional protests – a few of which can be disorderly – round asylum lodging.

“There’s a threat of encouraging additional lawlessness.”

Police say 25 arrests have been made in reference to dysfunction exterior the resort, with 16 individuals charged.

Lord Justice Bean mentioned Mr Justice Eyre “made a variety of errors” when imposing the injunction on 19 August.

Criticism was additionally levelled on the Excessive Courtroom decide’s refusal to permit House Secretary Yvette Cooper’s Eleventh-hour try and dismiss the council’s case.

That may have given him extra perception into the problem of relocating the asylum seekers, Lord Justice Bean added.

On the Excessive Courtroom, Epping Forest District Council claimed that the Bell proprietor Somani Inns breached planning guidelines by turning the location into asylum lodging.

“The battle will not be over and we are going to proceed the combat,” a spokesperson mentioned earlier.

“It’s nothing lower than the individuals of Epping would anticipate and deserve.”

Neil Hudson, the Tory MP for Epping Forest, mentioned the judgement was a “dreadful resolution”.

However Steve Smith, chief government of refugee charity Care4Calais, mentioned the ruling “made it clear that violent protest, and in lots of circumstances overt racism, will not be a fast-track route for the far proper to assault the rights of individuals looking for sanctuary on this nation”.

The judgement adopted evidence being heard on Thursday.

Housing asylum seekers was described as a “lifeline” for the venue, which was only one% full when it was open to paying prospects in August 2022.

Becca Jones, the House Workplace’s director of asylum assist, added it might have been a blow to lose The Bell Lodge’s 152 beds when strain was “important and rising”.

The listening to was informed there have been 103,684 accommodated asylum-seekers as of 31 March, increased than in 2024.

Philip Coppel KC, appearing for the district council, argued there was “no compelling motive” for the attraction bid to be allowed.