𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

A judge has sparked fury after blocking the closure of a controversial migrant hotel because housing asylum seekers is in “the public interest”.

Mr Justice Bean said ensuring illegal migrants have accommodation is “the most important factor against” the injunction ordering the closure of the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex.

And he said forcing them to move and change GPs would cause them disruption.

The shocking judgment revealed: “The most important factor against the grant of interim relief is the importance of the public interest in the accommodation of destitute asylum seekers.

“As noted above that is a public interest recognised by the imposition of a statutory duty on the Home Secretary and the use of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers is an element in the performance of that duty.

“This is coupled with the consideration that those currently accommodated in the Bell will required to move if interim relief is given and there will be a consequent disruption to their lives.

“All of them are now registered with local medical practices and there will be disruption in that respect as well as in the move to a different location.

“In that regard I reject the claimant’s contention that it will be less disruptive for those at the Bell to move now than it would be if they had to move later if an injunction is refused now but is ultimately granted.

And Epping Forest District Council vowed to continue fighting to close the hotel, stressing they will take the case to the Supreme Court.

The Bell Hotel has been surrounded by controversy after two of its guests were charged with sexual offences. Epping Forest District Council last week won a bid at the High Court to prevent migrants from being housed there.

The temporary injunction meant that the building had to be cleared of its occupants by September 12.

It also caused a ripple effect across the UK as more councils launched their own bids to kick migrants out of hotels in their towns.

But the Court of Appeal quashed the injunction following an appeal by the Home Office and hotel owners Somani – meaning the migrants can stay where they are.

It also gave permission for the Home Office to appeal against Mr Justice Eyre’s ruling not to let it intervene in the case as their involvement was “not necessary”.

Reversing the injunction, 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.

“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.

It came after the Home Office sensationally argued the rights of asylum seekers are more important than the concerns of local communities.

Government officials said anger from “local residents” over migrant hotels must be “viewed in the context of demands on the accommodation estate”.

Becca Jones, director of asylum support in the Home Office, warned the closure of the Bell Hotel would be “significant”.

She said: “The availability of the hotel is also important in enabling the Secretary of State to meet her duty to accommodate future asylum seekers going forward, in circumstances where the pressure on available properties is significant and increasing.

“The Home Office understands that local residents have concerns about the use of the hotel, which have been heard.

“However, those concerns must be viewed in the context of demands on the accommodation estate.”

She concluded: “Granting the interim injunction sought risks setting a precedent which would have a serious impact on the Secretary of State’s ability to house vulnerable people, both by encouraging other local authorities to seek such interim injunctions pending the outcome of substantive planning law complaints and those who seek to target asylum accommodation in acts of public disorder.”

Home Office lawyers also argued that the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

The department said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

“The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that housing asylum seekers was “in the national interest”.

Robin Green, representing the local authority, said that “circumstances on the ground changed” as protests began to take place.

“What was tolerable perhaps in May, was intolerable by July,” he added.

Addressing the judges, Mr Brown, representing the Home Secretary, said: “We say that the inference of court order drawn in these circumstances is that there was not in fact a significant planning concern…But [it] was broadly speaking triggered by protests and the arrests in the individual cases.”

But Mr Brown went on to describe the case as a “particularly unique set of circumstances”, adding: “this strongly indicates that this was not in fact a longstanding concern of planning irregularities brought on by the local authority as evidenced by the fact that they did nothing for four or five years.”

He added that claims put forward by the council were related to fear within the community of asylum seekers.

“That fear arises from a very small number of incidents, which are acknowledged to be serious, as opposed to any rational view that the individuals accommodated in general terms have a greater propensity to criminal activity,” he added.

“That was not a conclusion that can or should have been reached at all and we say was not one Epping that was in a position to advance.”

Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, in written submissions on Thursday, said that Mr Justice Eyre “overlooked” the “hardship” that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.

He said that the “extremely high-profile nature of the issue” created a “risk of a precedent being set”.

Mr Riley-Smith also said that the injunction would cause “financial harm” to the company, having told a previous hearing that the contract to accommodate asylum seekers was a “lifeline” and that the hotel had been only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers.

Epping Forest District Council pointed out that the Home Office had not intervened in similar cases.

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick: “At the invitation of Yvette Cooper’s lawyers, the Court of Appeal ruled the public interest was in keeping illegal migrants in hotel accommodation, while the harms to Epping residents were put aside. It even encourages councils and the police to curb local protests rather than stopping the use of hotels housing illegal migrants. It’s there in black and white: the entire system has been turned against the British people.”