Epping asylum hotel court ruling poses real danger for government - but they also smell dirty tricks
That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.
For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office's own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.
Granting the injunction"runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests", the barrister said - pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would "aggravate pressures on the asylum estate".
Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council - over the border in Hertfordshire - posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.
The risks here are clear.
Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.
If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.
After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.
There are several caveats though.
This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.
So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain - and by extension the Home Office.
We have been here before
Remember, this isn't the first legal claim of this kind.
Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.
In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.
As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.
But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.
So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.
Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.
Failing Labour approach or Tory tricks?
But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.
Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area - as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county - the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives ' time in government.
Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.
But that won't stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Former Salmond staffer rejects Sturgeon claims in book as ‘obviously false'
Nicola Sturgeon's new book contains 'falsehoods at worst, fabrications at best' about her predecessor, Alex Salmond's former chief of staff has claimed. Geoff Aberdein, who worked for Mr Salmond when he was first minister, hit out at Ms Sturgeon, saying: 'I was brought up that you didn't speak ill of the dead. 'But I think if you're going to speak ill of the dead, at least make your claims accurate.' He told the Holyrood Sources podcast that Mr Salmond's widow Moira was 'particularly upset and frustrated at a lot of what has been said' about her late husband, who died suddenly in October 2024. Mr Aberdein continued: 'I think it was important to set out and correct the record not just because Alex is not in position to defend himself, but for myself as well and the series of other officials and civil servants that have contacted me.' Claims that Mr Salmond was the person who leaked the story of the sexual harassment allegations against him are 'obviously false', Mr Aberdein insisted. He said that when his former boss took the phone call to say the story about the allegations was being published by the Daily Record he was actually meeting lawyers to 'draft a legal summons to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's Government from making the allegations public'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'To suggest Alex was simultaneously leaking documents deeply damaging to his reputation whilst at the same time paying lawyers a lot of money to get a court order to prevent publication of the same material is just utterly absurd.' Mr Salmond went on to be acquitted of all the charges against him in a court case in 2020. Mr Aberdein also dismissed claims by Ms Sturgeon that Mr Salmond 'didn't read' the white paper on independence which had been produced by the Scottish government in the run up to the 2014 referendum. In her recently published memoir, Frankly, Ms Sturgeon spoke out about her 'cold fury' with her former leader over his 'abdication of responsibility' on the key document. Mr Aberdein – who said he would not be reading the book – accepted that his former boss 'delegated the responsibility for drafting the white paper to Nicola Sturgeon'. However he insisted: 'To suggest, as I think was the purpose of this story, that he wasn't engaged in the process of a prospectus for independence is utterly nonsense. The former Salmond chief of staff also rejected claims that Mr Salmond was 'apparently against same-sex marriage' – saying that this was 'demonstrably false'. Mr Aberdein told the podcast Mr Salmond had 'declared his personal support for gay marriage for the first time' in a newspaper article in April 2011. And he added that while the SNP election manifesto that year had pledged to consult on the issue Mr Salmond 'chose to come out… excuse the pun, the turn of phrase, ahead of that result, to say that he personally supported it.' With the SNP having won the 2011 Holyrood election, Mr Aberdein recalled 'being in the room with advisors, civil servants and indeed ministers about how we would go about reassuring different sections of our society about that legislation, particularly religious leaders and other civic leaders'. He also made the 'obvious point' that 'if Alex Salmond didn't want legislation to be progressed, he was the first minister of a majority SNP government, it wouldn't have been progressed'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'The point falls down on that alone.'
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Met Police's use of live facial recognition is 'unlawful', equality watchdog warns
The use of live facial recognition by Britain's biggest police force is 'unlawful' and not compatible with human rights laws, the equalities watchdog has said. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has claimed Scotland Yard's rules and safeguards fall short of standards and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights when deployed at protests. Live facial recognition (LFR) is set to be deployed by the force at Notting Hill Carnival over the August bank holiday weekend. More than one million people are expected to converge on the streets of west London for the annual celebration. And Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has already sought to reassure campaign groups that the technology will be used without bias. And a spokesman from the force said it believes its use of the tool is 'both lawful and proportionate, playing a key role in keeping Londoners safe.' The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review over LFR, brought by privacy campaigner Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo and anti-knife crime community worker Shaun Thompson. They are seeking the legal challenge claiming Mr Thompson was 'grossly mistreated' after LFR wrongly identified him as a criminal last year. EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick said the technology, when used responsibly, can help combat serious crime and keep people safe, but the biometric data being processed is 'deeply personal'. 'The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society,' he said. 'As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. 'We believe that the Metropolitan Police's current policy falls short of this standard. The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.' The watchdog said it believes the Met's policy is 'unlawful' because it is 'incompatible' with Articles 8, right to privacy, 10, freedom of expression, and 11, freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights. Big Brother Watch interim director Rebecca Vincent said the involvement of EHRC in the judicial review was hugely welcome in the 'landmark legal challenge'. 'The rapid proliferation of invasive live facial recognition technology without any legislation governing its use is one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today,' she said. 'Live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we've seen in Shaun's case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities.' 'Given this crucial ongoing legal action, the Home Office and police's investment in this dangerous and discriminatory technology is wholly inappropriate and must stop.' It comes as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended plans to expand LFR across the country to catch 'high-harm' offenders last week. Last month, the Metropolitan Police announced plans to expand its use of the technology across the capital. Police bosses said LFR will now be used up to ten times per week across five days, up from the current four times per week across two days. A Met spokesman said the force welcomes the EHRC's recognition of the technology's potential in policing, and that the Court of Appeal has confirmed police can use LFR under common law powers. 'As part of this model, we have strong safeguards in place, with biometric data automatically deleted unless there is a match," they said. 'Independent research from the National Physical Laboratory has also helped us configure the technology in a way that avoids discrimination.'
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Met Police's facial recognition policy ‘unlawful', says human rights watchdog
The Metropolitan Police's policy on live facial recognition technology is unlawful because it is incompatible with human rights laws, the equalities watchdog has said. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the UK's biggest police force's rules and safeguards over using the tool 'fall short' and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights when used at protests. The Met is set to use LFR, which captures people's faces in real-time CCTV cameras, at the Notting Hill Carnival over the August bank holiday. Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has already sought to reassure campaign groups that the technology will be used without bias. A Met spokesman said the force believed its use of the tool was 'both lawful and proportionate, playing a key role in keeping Londoners safe '. The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in a forthcoming judicial review over LFR, brought by Silkie Carlo, the Big Brother Watch director, and Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime community worker. They claim Mr Thompson was 'grossly mistreated' after LFR wrongly identified him as a criminal in 2024. John Kirkpatrick, the EHRC chief executive, said the technology could help combat serious crime and keep people safe but the biometric data being processed was 'deeply personal'. 'The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society,' he said. 'As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. 'We believe that the Metropolitan Police's current policy falls short of this standard. The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.' The watchdog said it believed the Met's policy was incompatible with articles eight, on right to privacy, 10, on freedom of expression and 11, on freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 'Most pressing human rights concern' Rebecca Vincent, the Big Brother Watch interim director, welcomed the involvement of the EHRC in the judicial review. 'The rapid proliferation of invasive live facial recognition technology without any legislation governing its use is one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today,' she said. 'Live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we've seen in Shaun's case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities. 'Given this crucial ongoing legal action, the Home Office and police's investment in this dangerous and discriminatory technology is wholly inappropriate and must stop.' Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, defended plans to expand LFR across the country to catch 'high-harm' offenders last week. In July, the Metropolitan Police announced plans to expand its use of the technology across the capital. Police bosses said LFR would now be used up to 10 times per week across five days, up from the current four times per week across two days. A Met spokeswoman said the force welcomed the EHRC's recognition of the technology's potential in policing, and that the Court of Appeal has confirmed police can use LFR under common law powers. 'As part of this model, we have strong safeguards in place, with biometric data automatically deleted unless there is a match,' she said. 'Independent research from the National Physical Laboratory has also helped us configure the technology in a way that avoids discrimination.'
