Asylum seekers to be removed from UK hotel after council wins injunction
Mr Justice Eyre granted the injunction against the owners of the Bell hotel in Epping, Essex, after hearing the local council's complaints that they had breached planning law by changing the site's use.
Epping district council also cited disruption caused by the protests, which came after two people staying at the hotel were charged with sexual offences, and concerns for the safety of the asylum seekers themselves.
Lawyers for the hotel's owners had argued the council was trying to stop the protests and that no planning concerns justified taking the 'exceptional step' of issuing an urgent order to close down the hotel, rather than dealing with the matter via conventional enforcement action or at a final injunction hearing.
Police gather ahead of a demonstration outside the former Bell Hotel in Epping. The local council won an injunction at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday, stopping migrants from being accommodated at the building. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire
Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, the judge agreed with the council that an urgent order was required to stop the hotel housing asylum seekers. He said the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Ltd, had until 12 September to comply.
The hotel has been at the centre of violent far-right protests since an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month.
A second man who was staying at the site, Mohammed Sharwarq, a Syrian national, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several men have been charged over alleged disorder outside the hotel.
Speaking after Tuesday's ruling, the council's leader, Chris Whitbread, said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news. This is not the end of the matter. Having obtained an interim provision, the next stage is for the council to return to the court and seek a permanent injunction.'
Enver Solomon, the Refugee Council's chief executive, said: 'Everyone agrees that hotels are the wrong answer. They cost the taxpayer billions, trap people in limbo and are flashpoints in communities.'
He said protests that had flared up against the sites left vulnerable asylum seekers feeling terrified, adding: 'This makes an already traumatising situation worse and prevents people from feeling safe.'
He said the government should stop relying on hotels and work with local councils to 'provide safe, cost-effective accommodation within communities. But ultimately, the only way to end hotel use for good is to resolve asylum applications quickly and accurately so people can either rebuild their lives here or return home with dignity.'
At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and had provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'.
He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell hotel to place asylum seekers. It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.'
The council argued that using the hotel to house asylum seekers, rather than as a conventional hotel, was a breach of planning law.
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said 'disagreement with government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be hardship caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He said contracts to house asylum seekers had been a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022 when it was open to paying customers.
'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning,' he said.
Prior to the ruling being handed down, the judge declined a last-minute application from the home secretary to intervene. A barrister for the home secretary argued that a ruling in the council's favour would have a substantial impact on her statutory duty to house asylum seekers while their cases are considered, among other concerns. But the judge said the home secretary's intervention was unnecessary and would merely use up court time.
After handing down his ruling, Mr Justice Eyre refused Somani Hotels leave to challenge it. Riley-Smith cited the ruling's 'wide-reaching ramifications', including the 'precedent that would be set' and the impact it could have 'on the wider strategy of the [home secretary] in relation to the housing of asylum seekers in hotels as part of meeting their statutory duties'.
Somani Hotels could still ask the court of appeal for the go-ahead to challenge the ruling. - The Guardian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
an hour ago
- Irish Independent
The Indo Daily: Secret messages, codewords and a phone smashed with an axe – The Irishman caught in 'biggest corporate espionage case of the century'
Earlier this year a spy trail of secret messages, codewords and a phone smashed with an axe unfolded in front of the High Court in an extraordinary tale of alleged corporate espionage. The story of Dublin man Keith O'Brien made international headlines when his employer, a major US HR services firm, set a 'trap' to identify how confidential information was being leaked – and the saga is not over yet. His 13-page confession was read to the High Court, where he told how he spied on his multinational employer for a rival for a fee of over €5,000 a month. That is, until he was caught. In an affidavit filed with the High Court, Keith O'Brien, who was global payroll compliance manager of Rippling, said he was induced into spying and passing sensitive company information to the CEO of rival US firm Deel Inc. The admission was disclosed during an application to join Deel, its French chief executive Alex Bouaziz and two solicitors working for Deel – Italian national Andrea David Mieli and UK-based Asif Malik – as co-defendants in corporate espionage proceedings taken by Rippling against Mr O'Brien last month. The Commercial Court heard Mr O'Brien passed on screenshots from Rippling's Slack messaging system to Mr Bouaziz, who was described as a billionaire, over the course of several months and was paid for this via Revolut and in cryptocurrency. Today, on the Indo Daily, Fionnán Sheahan is joined by Irish Independent legal affairs editor Shane Phelan and Sunday Independent senior correspondent Maeve Sheehan, to discuss how a payroll compliance manager was allegedly recruited as a corporate spy – and where the intrigue will go next.
The Irish Sun
2 hours ago
- The Irish Sun
More councils to try & block asylum seeker migrants from hotels in their area after landmark Epping ruling
MORE councils are now trying to block migrants from hotels in their local area after being spurred on by the landmark Epping victory. The ruling from High Court judge Mr Justice Eyre will force the owners of The Bell Hotel in Epping to remove migrants from the site before September 12. 5 Police officers stand outside the The Bell Hotel Credit: AFP 5 Jubilant protesters gather outside the Bell hotel following the court victory 5 Protests had erupted outside the hotel after one of its guests was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl Credit: Reuters 5 Activists were seen celebrating after the court ruling yesterday Epping Forest District Council had launched the punchy legal challenge after protests erupted outside The Bell Hotel in recent weeks. Public anger grew after a migrant living at the hotel was charged with sexual assault. Now, a Mr Justice Eyre has ruled that the hotel might have breached planning rules by housing migrants at their site in Essex, rather than paying customers. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told The Sun that the court's ruling yesterday throws Labour's asylum policy into 'chaos'. Now, other local authorities appear to be following the example of the small Essex council. The Borough of Broxbourne Council in Hertfordshire said it would take legal advice as a "matter of urgency" on whether it could undertake similar action. The local authority is seeking to remove migrants from The Delta Marriott Hotel in Cheshunt, saying it had opposed their placement in the hotel "from the outset". At the time, the council was advised that action to prevent asylum seekers being housed in the hotel was unlikely to be successful. But now, spurred on by the success seen in Epping, the council plans to take legal advice ahead of taking action to remove migrants from the hotel. Corina Gander, Tory leader of Broxbourne Borough Council, said the Epping verdict had "given us this massive boost and precedent that we can do something now". Protesters arrested near migrant hotel after 'asylum seeker guest' arrested on suspicion of assault She will be writing to the Home Office in the wake of the High Court ruling today to seek an assurance that no asylum seekers from the Bell Hotel in Epping will be moved to Cheshunt. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has also indicated the 12 councils where Reform UK was the largest party would consider legal challenges following Tuesday's ruling. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Farage said the local authorities would do "everything in their power to follow Epping's lead". He added: "The good people of Epping must inspire similar protests around Britain. "Wherever people are concerned about the threat posed by young undocumented males living in local hotels and who are free to walk their streets, they should follow the example of the town in Essex." Ahead of yesterday's court ruling, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper attempted to make an 11th hour attempt to get the case dismissed - but was refused by the judge. A lawyer acting for the Home Office had warned the decision to remove migrants would 'substantially impact' its ability to house asylum seekers in hotels across the UK. Edward Brown KC claimed it 'runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. Border Security Minister Angela Eagle said they would 'carefully consider' the judgment. She said: 'This Government inherited a broken asylum system, at the peak there were over 400 hotels open. We will continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns. Our work continues to close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament. 'We will carefully consider this judgment. As this matter remains subject to ongoing legal proceedings it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.' Following the ruling, Leader of Epping Forest District Council Chris Whitbread hailed the temporary ban as an important victory for councils across the country. Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, the Tory councillor said: 'This is a decision that's important to Epping Forest, but also important to have councils up and down the country, and it shows that the Government cannot ignore planning rules, just like no-one else can ignore planning rules.' He continued: 'One of the great things about Epping Forest, and one of the things I want to get back to, is Epping Forest is a great district and a great community, and there is so much that we can be proud of.' He added: 'This is only the start of a process and subject to appeal, we recognise that, but all things being equal, the Bell Hotel will be empty by September 12, and that's really important for the students, residents, businesses of Epping Forest. 'What we do have to be aware of, we have a responsibility now, and in recent weeks, we have seen the protests that started off quite violently become peaceful protests, run by the people of Epping Forest. 'What I call upon the residents tonight is if they decide to go outside the Bell Hotel, don't protest, don't over-celebrate. This is the beginning. It is not the end. 'We have a lot of work to do, and we will do everything we can, as I promised the full council, we will leave no stone unturned to work in the interest of Epping Forest. 'The Government have to address the bigger issue of the illegal asylum problem, but in Epping Forest, we will stand up for our residents and we will do our best on their behalf.' Not all councils, however, are pursuing the same path as Epping Forest. The leader of South Norfolk District Council, which covers the town of Diss where a hotel housing asylum seekers has also been the subject of protests, said the council would not go down the same route. Conservative leader Daniel Elmer said the council was using planning rules to try to ensure it was families being housed in the area rather than single adult males. He said to do so, which would effectively convert the hotels into hostels, should require a change of use. Two men were arrested and charged in connection with a protest in July outside the hotel in Diss, which houses more than 40 children. Cllr Elmer said: "We make a big play about integration, and to replace families who have children in the local school system and have integrated into the local community would make no sense." He added: "If we can punish people who have put up sheds in their gardens without permission, then we can take action against hotels being converted into hostels without planning consent." This comes as protesters were seen rejoicing outside the Bell Hotel in Essex today following the landmark ruling booting migrants out of the site. They were seen popping bottles of champagne, spraying the drink in the air and waving Union Jacks. Families partying outside the Epping hotel told The Sun the ruling will set a precedent for the other hotels across the UK. The ruling today was welcomed by Reform leader Nigel Farage, who said: "This is a victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping. They do not want their young women being assaulted on the streets. "This community stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far right, and have won. They represent the vast majority of decent people in this country. "Young, undocumented males who break into the UK illegally should NOT be free to walk the streets anywhere. They must be detained and deported. "I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others across the country."
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Kneecap trial spotlights challenges for Irish speakers in British and Irish courts
When the case of Kneecap 's Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was before Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this summer, Ó hAnnaidh's legal team indicated that he might require an Irish-language interpreter for his trial. That trial, if it proceeds to hearing later this year, would be the most high-profile case involving testimony given through Irish in recent history. It is also likely to highlight at least some of the difficulties faced by Irish speakers in courtrooms both in the UK and Ireland. Perhaps the most basic difficulty is securing a right to use Irish at all. Had Ó hAnnaidh been prosecuted in Northern Ireland prior to February, 2024, a 1737 Act of Parliament would have prohibited the use of Irish in court. Even now, following the introduction of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, there are no procedures in place to protect a right to use Irish in Northern Irish courtrooms. It will be for Northern Ireland 's Justice Minister, Naomi Long, to introduce the guidelines which will give effect to the new Act there. At present, the primary concern is how any procedures would define necessity. Will a person need to demonstrate a certain level of fluency, or that they will suffer a particular degree of prejudice in order to prove it is 'necessary' for them to use Irish during a hearing? Beyond the six counties, the position in Ireland is, on paper, more favourable, with statutory and constitutional protections of the right to speak Irish in court. Yet, even here, the practical challenges and negative impacts of speaking Irish can often deter parties from using it. The most basic obstacle facing Irish speakers across all the UK and Ireland was mentioned by the judge during Ó hAnnaidh's last appearance in court – it can often be difficult to locate an interpreter. In the UK, there is, at least, a National Register of Public Service Interpreters. The register determines who is qualified to interpret court proceedings. It requires interpreters to prove they have an approved qualification, while they must undertake training to act in courtroom settings. READ MORE Yet even with that infrastructure in place, an interpreter was still proving hard to find when Ó hAnnaidh was last in court. No such register is maintained in Ireland and there is no central registration or regulation of interpreters, let alone those sufficiently qualified to act in courtroom settings. As a result, although there is a constitutional and statutory right to speak Irish in court in Ireland, it may be harder to locate a qualified interpreter in Ireland than in the UK – where no such right exists. Even where an interpreter is located, judges and lawyers who are not familiar with interpretation may fail to grasp the potential for crossed wires and bias that result from linguistic differences and the process of interpretation itself. An Irish speaker will not, for example, be able to give the same monosyllabic yes or no answer that an English-speaking witness would. The potential impression of being evasive, vague or contradictory where small differences in language and meaning have tangible legal outcomes is real. In cases where interpreters lack specific courtroom experience, and legal proceedings lack guidelines for how to deal with interpreters, those risks can be realised all too easily. In Australia and the US, researchers have established that linguistic differences and small changes introduced by interpreters, such as hesitating words like 'ah' or 'um', can cause witnesses to appear untrustworthy or evasive. Negative perceptions of those who choose to speak a minority language, including Irish, can also have very real impacts on the choice to use a language in court. The choice to use a language, including Irish, is often seen as political - aligning the speaker (whether rightly or wrongly) with a particular ideology or political group. In such cases, the choice to speak (or refuse to speak) a particular language can be read as a rejection of institutions which operate through another tongue, or as an effort to shame non-speakers. Hardly the note to strike when appealing to a judge or a jury. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter Minority language speakers can be perceived as difficult; seeking to gain an advantage by inconveniencing the other parties in a trial. Similarly, they can be considered untrustworthy - using the delay interpretation requires to more carefully consider their answers, or to deliberately misunderstand a question to buy time. In Ireland, these perceptions are often based on the assumption that there is no such thing as a person who is more comfortable speaking Irish than English. Yet while English may be dominant in terms of the number of daily users, there are still those who – in the face of the formalities and consequences of the legal process – would rather have the security of the language they know best when they must answer questions on which their liberty or livelihood depend. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter. In being tried in the UK he will, at least, have the benefit of a system in which interpretation is regulated. On this side of the Irish sea, the case is an opportunity to reflect on why negative tropes concerning Irish speakers persist - inside and outside our justice system. It also presents an opportunity to give practical effect to the official status of Irish in courtrooms across the island. Furthermore, it presents an opening to recognise that the issues impacting Irish speakers are ones which reach through our society – and our justice systems - more broadly. Poor standards of interpretation, as well as the legal profession's lack of training on how to conduct a hearing in which interpreters are involved, are barriers to accessing justice and securing a fair trial. They profoundly impact all our minority language communities – including those navigating the international protection system. Irish speakers, Irish citizens, Irish residents and those seeking to make a life here all deserve a justice system in which the language they speak does not determine the reach of their voice, or the reception of their testimony. Dr Róisín Á Costello is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and a practicing barrister.
