Council's bid to block hotel housing asylum seekers to be heard on Friday
It follows a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
PA news agency understands the injunction bid is due to be heard on Friday by Mr Justice Eyre at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, with the case involving the council and Somani Hotels Ltd.
The council said in a statement on Tuesday that it had seen 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation.
It continued that it had issued the injunction bid because of the 'clear risk of further escalating community tensions and urgency of the need for the present situation to be brought under control'.
Councillors had voted unanimously last month to call on the Home Office to close the hotel, the council added.
Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'.
He said: 'The use by the Home Office of the premises for asylum seekers poses a clear risk of further escalating community tensions already at a high, and the risk of irreparable harm to the local community.
'This will only increase with the start of the new school year.
'In our view, placing asylum seekers in the Bell Hotel is a clear breach of planning permission. It is not in use as a hotel, and it doesn't function as a hotel.
'The establishment of a centre to accommodate asylum seekers in this particular location, in close proximity to five schools, a residential care home, and the shops and amenities of the market town of Epping, is not appropriate in planning terms.'
The protests outside the hotel came after a man who was staying at the hotel, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with sexual assault.
Kebatu, who is accused of attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl, denies the charges and will stand trial this month.
A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, 32, has separately been charged with seven offences.
At a hearing at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, he denied a count of sexual assault after being alleged to have kissed a man on the neck.
He indicated guilty pleas to a further two counts of common assault and four of assault by beating, with all of the offences said to have taken place at the hotel between July 25 and August 12.
He was remanded in custody until a trial at the same court next month.
Six men charged in relation to disorder outside the hotel will also appear in court next week.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Ban Britain's most dangerous drivers for life, say Tories
Britain's most dangerous drivers should be banned from the roads for life, the Conservatives have said. Just one per cent of people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving last year were handed a lifetime driving ban, new figures reveal. Just half a per cent of those convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving were banned for life. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Under this Government, you can kill someone with your car and be back on the road in just five years. 'In England and Wales, the most dangerous drivers are being let back behind the wheel every single day because of soft sentencing guidelines. This isn't justice – it's a system that clears killers to drive again and again and again. It's time to introduce automatic lifetime bans for the worst offenders. It costs nothing, it saves lives, it is time to act.' Sentencing Council rules set the minimum ban for causing death by dangerous driving at five years. Causing serious injury by dangerous driving attracts a minimum ban of two years, even at the highest culpability and harm levels. Sir Simon Clarke, the director of the Onward think-tank, which carried out the research, said: 'It's outrageous that killers and serial offenders are being handed their licences back like nothing happened. Lifetime bans should be the norm, not the exception.' Onward's research highlighted cases including that of Cain Byrne, 20, who – despite never having held a driving licence – ran over and killed an 81-year-old cyclist moments after inhaling laughing gas from a balloon. He was sentenced earlier this year to 11 years and six months in a young offenders' institution, and banned from driving for 17 years and eight months. In another case highlighted, a motorist who ran over a cyclist after the victim spat on his Land Rover during a road rage row was jailed for 18 months and banned from getting behind the wheel for three years. Nick Cook was left with a broken pelvis, six broken ribs and a punctured liver after the road rage incident. Alan Moult, then aged 74, admitted causing serious injury by dangerous driving over the July 2020 confrontation. Three years ago, the Conservatives toughened sentencing rules for causing death by dangerous driving, with offenders facing life sentences from 2022 onwards. The current Sentencing Council rules, which judges must obey, say the typical sentence will fall between two and 18 years imprisonment.
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
Rise in no-fault evictions despite Labour's pledge to ban them
Thousands of people have had their homes seized after receiving controversial 'no-fault' eviction notices despite Labour pledging to abolish them, new data shows. Labour said in its election manifesto it would abolish Section 21 eviction notices 'immediately' after winning the election. A year on, and the relevant legislation still progressing through parliament means that the ban is still not in effect. According to Ministry of Justice figures released on Thursday, 11,400 households received no-fault evictions by bailiffs in the year to June. The number of bailiff evictions is an eight per cent rise on the previous year, continuing a trend of a heightened use of the notices. Housing charity Shelter said it is 'unconscionable' that renters 'continue to be marched out of their homes by bailiffs' a year after Labour 's election victory. It warned that nearly 1,000 households could be evicted from their homes by bailiffs every month until the ban on the notices is finally put in place. Section 21 notices grant landlords the power to evict tenants from their properties at two months' notice without needing to give any reason. Former prime minister Theresa May first announced the Conservatives' intention to abolish Section 21 notices in April 2019. Shelter described no-fault evictions as one of the leading causes of homelessness. Mairi MacRae, its director of campaigns and policy, said: "It is unconscionable that more than a year after the government came to power, thousands of renters continue to be marched out of their homes by bailiffs because of an unfair policy that the government said would be scrapped immediately. 'For far too long, tenants' lives have been thrown into turmoil by the rank injustice of 'no-fault' evictions. At the whim of private landlords, thousands of tenants are being left with just two months to find a new home, plunging them into a ruthless rental market and leaving many exposed to the riptide of homelessness.' The government's Renters' Rights Bill, sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, is currently in its final stages. It is expected to pass before the end of the year, or early 2026 at the latest. Alongside abolishing Section 21 notices, it would give tenants a 12-month protected period at the beginning of their tenancy, alongside increasing the notice requirement for landlords to evict on other grounds from two to four months. The bill would also provide protection against 'backdoor eviction ', where tenants are effectively pushed out by above-market rent increases, by giving them greater powers to challenge them. Housing charity Crisis has called on the government to bring forward the legislation and name a date when it will be implemented. Matt Downie, chief executive at Crisis, said: 'Despite good intentions from the Westminster government, thousands of people are still being unjustly evicted from their homes and threatened with – or even forced into – homelessness.' The new data comes after Labour MP Rushanara Ali recently resigned her role as homelessness minister following reports she gave tenants in a property she owned four months' notice to leave, before relisting the property with a £700 rent increase just weeks later. Such a move would likely not be allowed under the Renters' Rights Bill, which is set to introduce new protections for tenants, including banning landlords who evict tenants in order to sell their property from relisting it for rent for six months. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'No one should live in fear of a Section 21 eviction and these new figures show exactly why we will abolish them through our Renters' Rights Bill, which is a manifesto commitment and legislative priority for this government. 'We're determined to level the playing field by providing tenants with greater security, rights and protections in their homes and our landmark reforms will be implemented swiftly after the bill becomes law.'
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's prisons gamble has made our streets less safe
When Labour came to power they inherited a justice system in crisis. Our prisons, awash with violence and drugs, were almost full. The country was weeks away from running out of jail cells, then running out of court and police cells in short order. So Labour gambled. They chose more controlled early releases under 'SDS40', under which certain prisoners would be released 40 per cent of the way through their sentence. The Government's aim was to buy enough time for prison-building, the Sentencing Review and Courts Review to avert catastrophe. Now, a year later, thanks to Charles Hymas's reporting, we know that gamble is failing. For every four prisoners released in the first three months of the year, three have been 'recalled' to prison. This happens either when an offender commits another offence, fails to attend meetings with probation officers or 'breaches their licence' – breaking conditions designed to prevent future offending and protect victims. The data from the Ministry of Justice covers the first quarter of this year and shows that recalls are up 36 per cent. The statisticians explicitly blame SDS40 and a 2024 change to recall rules for the increase, saying that the 'combined effect expected from these changes is… more opportunities for offenders to be recalled'. In theory prison should rehabilitate inmates, making them less likely to offend after release, and then the probation service should manage those people in the community, keeping them out of trouble. The reality is very different. We know that offenders who leave prison with a job, a home and a good social network are much less likely to reoffend. However, fewer than a third of prisoners have a job six months after release while over a quarter don't have a stable home three months after release. Part of the problem is overcrowding. When prisons have no room, they are often more violent and drug-filled, meaning staff struggle to maintain order. Often the first thing to go is 'purposeful activity' – work, study and training – which might help prisoners avoid crime on release. This is why the Government announced a significant prison-building programme last year, but it has admitted this week it is 'unachievable'. Meanwhile the probation service, desperately understaffed and struggling to retain experienced officers, is being asked to do more and more. If people spend just 40 per cent of their sentence in prison then that means they are supervised by probation for longer, meaning more work. Despite being a crucial part of the justice system and doing difficult, complex work, officers have seen their pay collapse both in real terms and in comparison to other public sector workers. In 2004 a probation officer's pay was equivalent to that of a police sergeant's whereas now it is equivalent to a police constable's. Staff often describe a management culture of fear and excessive demands. As a result of these pressures, Napo, the probation union, are balloting for strike action. The result will be known on August 22, and may herald another headache for Labour. More risks are on their way. In June, in a desperate attempt to delay prisons running out of space again, the Government announced a change meaning that most offenders recalled to prison would be sent back for a shorter 'fixed-term' recall of 28 days, rather than a much longer 'standard recall'. The idea is that with recalled prisoners spending less time back in jail, the prison population should fall. However, this may have the opposite effect. Probation officers may feel that recalling someone for just 28 days is less serious, and so may be more willing to use the power. Short recalls are also the worst of all worlds – 28 days is enough time for someone to lose any employment or home they may have, but provides no time for any real rehabilitation to take place. When the recall policy was announced in the spring, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson acknowledged that they had not conducted any modelling to estimate these risks. So this policy too is a gamble. When Parliament returns the Sentencing Review will begin its journey into law. This, along with the Courts Review, will increase the use of non-prison punishments, placing yet more pressure on probation. If the gamble goes wrong we may well see soaring reoffending, yet more recalls, and an ever more lawless Britain.
