Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has secured a crucial victory in the controversial Epping migrant hotel legal battle after the Court of Appeal ruled that a High Court judge made “erroneous” decisions in blocking her department’s involvement.
Three senior judges overturned Mr Justice Eyre’s decision to exclude the Home Office from proceedings concerning the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which has housed 138 asylum seekers and become a flashpoint for violent protests.
Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, granted the Home Office permission to be an interested party in the case, potentially changing the outcome of Epping Forest District Council’s bid to remove asylum seekers from the hotel.
The ruling means the Home Office’s previously dismissed arguments will now be heard in court and taken into consideration, marking a significant win for Cooper’s efforts to maintain control over asylum accommodation policy.
Lord Justice Cobb stated that Mr Justice Eyre had made “a number of errors in principle” which undermined his original decision, particularly his failure to consider the “obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system”.
“The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system,” Justice Cobb said, warning that such injunctions “may incentivise” other councils to take similar legal action.
Lord Justice Bean emphasised the Home Office’s “constitutional role relating to public safety” and confirmed the department was directly affected by the issues at stake.
Reading a summary of the Court of Appeal’s decision, Lord Justice Bean was careful to clarify: “We should say at the outset what this appeal is not about. It is not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise.
The Government is now expected to hear whether a full appeal against the injunction itself will be successful, which could overturn the order requiring asylum seekers to leave the Bell Hotel by 12 September.
The case has become a critical test of Labour’s asylum policy after Cooper vowed to end the use of hotels for housing asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, whilst maintaining this must be done in an “ordered and managed way.
At least 30 local authorities, including nine Labour-run councils, are reportedly considering similar legal action following Epping’s initial success, raising the stakes for the Government’s appeal.
The Bell Hotel has been at the centre of violent protests after Ethiopian national Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, who was staying there, was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. He has denied the offence and has been on trial this week.
Edward Brown KC, representing the Home Office, argued that Mr Justice Eyre’s ruling “substantially interferes” with the Home Secretary’s statutory duties to accommodate potentially destitute asylum seekers.
This injunction essentially incentivises other authorities who wish to remove asylum accommodation to move urgently to court before capacity elsewhere in the system becomes exhausted,” Brown warned. “That creates a chaotic and disorderly approach.”
The Home Office had argued that blocking their involvement would have a “substantial impact” on Cooper’s ability to fulfil her legal obligations to asylum seekers across the UK, where more than 32,000 are currently housed in up to 210 hotels.
In court documents, Home Office lawyers invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, stating: “The [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR, which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”
Lord Justice Cobb criticised the original judge for not considering “the potential cumulative impact of such ad-hoc applications”, describing this as “a material consideration that was not considered by the judge”.
The Court of Appeal heard that 138 asylum seekers currently housed at the Bell Hotel would face “hardship” if forced to move, with the hotel’s lawyers arguing that Mr Justice Eyre had “overlooked” this factor.
Piers Riley-Smith, for hotel owners Somani Hotels, noted the Bell had housed asylum seekers during three separate periods since May 2020, with the council only taking action after recent protests.
Health minister Stephen Kinnock warned earlier that immediate closure of all asylum hotels could lead to migrants living “destitute in the streets”, highlighting the Government’s dilemma in managing the situation.
The Government faces pressure from multiple directions, with Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp criticising Labour for “taking legal action to keep open the Bell Hotel” whilst communities demand immediate closure.
Cooper has maintained that whilst the Government is committed to closing all asylum hotels, this must be done in a way that avoids “simply creating problems for other areas and local councils”.
The victory represents a crucial moment for the Home Secretary’s authority over immigration policy, as she battles to prevent a cascade of similar injunctions that could derail the Government’s asylum accommodation strategy.
A fresh wave of protests at asylum hotels across the UK is expected this weekend, with counter-protests planned by anti-racism groups, adding urgency to the Government’s efforts to regain control of the situation.
The case continues, with a further hearing expected to determine whether the injunction blocking asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel should be made permanent.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
