
More councils to try & block asylum seeker migrants from hotels in their area after landmark Epping ruling
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
5
5
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".
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."
5
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
a few seconds ago
- BBC News
Staffordshire County Council to explore asylum hotel options
A council leader has said his authority will explore its options following a High Court ruling to stop a hotel housing asylum Cooper, of Reform UK-controlled Staffordshire County Council, said he welcomed the decision to grant a temporary injunction blocking migrants being placed at The Bell Hotel in Epping, injunction was sought by Epping Forest District Council and came as thousands protested at the site after an asylum seeker living there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old Cooper said he previously wrote to the Home Secretary about the issue and that the ongoing use of hotels to house asylum seekers was "unacceptable". "We welcome this ruling and will be in contact with our district and borough council partners to explore what options this now gives us in Staffordshire," he said."The control and protection of our country's borders is a national issue but the impact of central government policy is felt in communities across Staffordshire." Mr Justice Eyre made his High Court judgement on Tuesday after refusing an 11th-hour effort from Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to get the council's case Home Office had warned the decision would "substantially impact" its ability to house asylum seekers in hotels across the seekers must be moved out of the hotel by 16:00 BST on 12 September, the judge Eagle, Border Security Minister, has said the government would carefully consider the judgement and 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," she UK leader Nigel Farage has said all 12 councils controlled by his party would "do everything in their power to follow Epping's lead".Mr Cooper's comments came barely more than a year after violent disorder broke out at the Holiday Inn Express in Tamworth, which was housing asylum came under fire from missiles during the riot and a fire was started inside the hotel. Multiple people have since been jailed for taking part in the considering taking part in disorder in Staffordshire were recently urged to "think again" by the county's police, fire and crime commissioner Ben Adams. Follow BBC Stoke & Staffordshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.


Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestine is not only reckless, it may be unlawful
The Government's defeat in court over migrants being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping seems to have alarmed the Government and shocked some commentators, particularly on the Left. But really it shouldn't. In case anyone else had not noticed, the expansion of judicial review over the years means that judges regularly block ministers from doing things. It usually boils down to whether the court thinks the government is being 'irrational'. Housing migrants in a way that breaches planning laws will have that effect. Other cases might potentially prove the same point. The Prime Minister's move to formally recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, goes beyond political misjudgement. It is administratively incompetent for the UK to recognise a state which has two rival Palestinian governments; in the West Bank where Mahmoud Abbas has not held elections for 20 years and which is in a state of fierce enmity with the terrorists who are the controlling force in Gaza. It is irrational and bitterly inconsistent with British post-war policy to empower Hamas to such an extent that they have been crowing loudly that the recognition being promised is justification for the most murderous pogrom against Jews since the Second World War, their savage slaughter of over a thousand civilians on October 7, 2023. Judicial review allows judges to assess whether a government decision is so irrational or unlawful that it must be struck down. Although not a judicial review, the result at the Bell Hotel appears to fulfil those criteria. This power has actually been expanding for decades. Just recently, a judge allowed a legal challenge to proceed against Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, the first time a court has agreed to review such a designation under the Terrorism Act. Could the courts now intervene in Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine? Traditionally, foreign policy decisions have been protected from judicial interference, resting on ancient royal prerogatives. But that protection may not last for ever. In 2015, a court suggested that if a foreign policy decision was sufficiently irrational, it could be subject to legal review. We may now have reached that point with Palestinian recognition. This is because Starmer wants to recognise a 'state' not only with no clear government, but with no internationally recognised borders, and where any UK diplomatic representative to the new state visiting Gaza would be holding court with a proscribed terror group Hamas, which throws gay people off buildings and keeps hostages in such torturous and starving conditions that even Henry VIII's stomach would have turned. This is not just reckless, it may be unlawful. Worse still, the Prime Minister and his Attorney General, Lord Hermer, have been fixated with international law, or at least their selective understanding of it, to such an extent that they have been blind to the UK's national security interests. Their legal idealism is overriding basic strategic sense. And what's more, instead of focusing on the real issues facing Britain, a faltering economy, a failing welfare state and unsustainable immigration, Starmer is wasting time trying to placate a Parliamentary Labour Party he clearly can't control whilst also giving succour to extremists who have brought sectarian tensions to the streets of the UK for nearly two years now. If no one challenges the recognition of a Palestinian state in court, it will not be because it is a sound decision. It would probably just be because no one has raised the money to initiate the challenge. And I wouldn't place a bet on that. If it does get tested in court the Prime Minister may find himself embarrassed, and not for the first time.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Met police's facial recognition plans fall foul of European law, says watchdog
Scotland Yard's plan to widen the use of controversial live facial recognition technology is unlawful because it is incompatible with European laws, the equalities regulator has claimed. As the UK's biggest force prepares to use instant face-matching cameras at this weekend's Notting Hill carnival, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said its use was intrusive and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights. The development will be a blow to Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who has backed the use of the technology at mass events such as this weekend's carnival, when 2 million people are expected to descend upon west London. The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review launched last month by the anti-knife campaigner Shaun Thompson. Thompson, a Black British man, was wrongly identified by live facial recognition (LFR) as a criminal, held by police, then faced demands from officers for his fingerprints. Data seen by the EHRC shows that the number of black men triggering an 'alert' while using the technology is higher than would be expected proportionally, when compared with the population of London, it said. A letter last week from 11 anti-racist and civil liberty organisations, disclosed in the Guardian, urged the Met to scrap the use of the technology over concerns of racial bias and the impending legal challenge. LFR technology captures and analyses the faces of individuals passing in front of real-time CCTV cameras. It extracts unique biometric data from each face and compares it against a 'watchlist' of thousands of people sought by the police. There is at present no specific domestic legislation regulating police use of LFR, with police using common law powers instead. The Met insists that the Equality Act 2010 places legal obligations upon them to eliminate discrimination. The EHRC said that the claim brought forward by Thompson 'raises issues of significant public importance' and will provide submissions 'on the intrusive nature of LFR technology' which focus on the way in which the technology has been used by the police. The Met's policy on LFR technology 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, the watchdog says. Rebecca Vincent, the interim director of Big Brother Watch, said the EHRC's intervention was 'hugely welcome'. She added: '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. '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.' John Kirkpatrick, chief executive of the EHRC, said: '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 said last month it would deploy specially mounted cameras at entries and exits of the two-day event in west London. Rowley wrote on Tuesday that the technology would target the 'small minority' who commit serious crimes including violence and sexual offences. The Met has been approached for comment.