Key facts
- The UK Court of Appeal overturned a temporary injunction that would have prevented asylum seekers from staying at the Bell Hotel in Epping.
- The ruling means asylum seekers do not have to leave the hotel by September 12, pending a full trial in October.
- The Home Office's involvement in the case was permitted by the Court of Appeal, reversing a High Court decision.
- The government aims to close all hotels housing asylum seekers by 2029.
The UK government has secured a victory in the Court of Appeal, overturning a temporary injunction that had sought to remove asylum seekers from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. The initial injunction, granted by the High Court, had mandated that asylum seekers leave the hotel by September 12.
However, the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Bean, found that the High Court's decision contained several errors, including failing to adequately consider the broader implications for asylum seeker accommodation capacity. The ruling means asylum seekers can continue to reside at the hotel, although this is not a final decision, with the case scheduled for a full trial in October. The Court of Appeal also allowed the Home Office to participate in the proceedings, a move previously denied by the High Court.
Border Security and Asylum Minister Dame Angela Eagle stated that the Home Office's appeal was aimed at facilitating an "orderly and controlled" exit from hotels used for asylum accommodation, reiterating the government's commitment to closing such facilities by 2029. The government indicated that Tuesday's ruling would support a "planned and sustained programme" for hotel closures. More than 30,000 migrants were housed in hotels as of June.
Political reactions were divided. Kemi Badenoch described the ruling as a "setback," while Nigel Farage suggested the government was using human rights laws against local residents. Liberal Democrats and Green Party representatives criticized the "legacy" of the Conservative government. Conversely, Conservative home affairs spokesperson Chris Philp called the decision a "dark day for local democracy and a slap in the face to the people of Epping." Pro-migrant groups have alleged that far-right elements and opportunistic politicians are exploiting tensions in areas like Epping.