The real difficulty ministers face is that the Epping hotel judgment is a clean and fair application of the law: ANDREW TETTENBORN

Daily Mail​

16 hours ago

There's a beautiful irony in the Epping hotel injunction. The Government's immigration policy of putting asylum seekers in hotels in some of the less well-off parts of the country has received a major blow from the legal class that Keir Starmer, Lord Hermer and many of their learned friends themselves inhabit.
And it's a blow that sees the long-term viability of the Government's immigration policy unravel, as councils up and down the country will seek to use this ruling to shut down their own troublesome migrant hotels.
The difficulty for the Government is that Mr Justice Eyre's decision is a clean, fair, straightforward application of the law. He has ruled that, if planning permission exists for a hotel, it's a blatant breach of planning law to use the premises as a long-term asylum reception centre.
Who'd have thought it? At bottom, it's no different from a convoy of travellers breaking planning law by parking caravans on a public recreation ground, or a farmer building a holiday camp on an arable field. The courts regularly issue stiff injunctions in cases like these, and rightly so.
But Starmer and the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, were surprisingly complacent, imagining that somehow this didn't apply to their own activities.
When the penny dropped at the last minute, they scrambled to influence the result, sending barrister Edward Brown KC to argue that the local authority 'should, in fact, have given some consideration to the wider public interest in this application'. In other words, that an injunction should not be allowed because it would make life very difficult for the Government.
Counsel for the hotelier took much the same line, effectively ignoring the concerns of the local people who had been protesting outside The Bell ever since an Ethiopian asylum seeker lodging there was charged with sexual assault against a 14-year-old schoolgirl. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common,' he said. 'But that does not make them well founded.'
The hotelier's barrister was, of course, doing his job. Nevertheless, such legal arguments blithely take no notice of local problems caused by uncontrolled immigration and the small boats crisis, which has seen more than 50,000 undocumented illegal migrants crossing the Channel to Britain in the 13 months since Labour came to power.
Until now, the Home Office has seemed content to dump the problem on councils such as Epping, where voters traditionally mistrust Labour. Now those voters have rightly dumped it back on the Government.
What seriously spooks the Home Office is that Epping will not be a lone case. Across the kingdom we could now see multiple injunctions, forcing the Home Secretary in short order to relocate tens of thousands of asylum seekers currently in hotels – there are more than 32,000 according to figures released in March.
And it is urgent: The High Court has given the Government only three weeks, until September 12, to vacate The Bell.
The Government must act, and fast. One option might be to set up more dedicated reception centres, as in Germany and France. Another is to deter small-boat crossings by making it more difficult for illegal migrants to enter the black economy. The ball is firmly, and legally, in its court.