Migrants staying at the Bell Hotel in Epping have “thanked” the Prime Minister following the Court of Appeal’s ruling allowing them to remain there, sparking widespread anger amongst locals and politicians yesterday.
A temporary injunction, which blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Essex hotel, was overturned on Friday 29 August, with three senior judges ruling that the Home Office should have been allowed to intervene in the original case.
Residents at the hotel are “delighted” with the news, with Somali asylum seeker Khadar Mohamed, 24, telling The Telegraph: “I want to say thank you to Keir Starmer and his Government. I am delighted with the news, wow. That is really amazing.”
Mr Mohamed said he won his claim for political asylum against the Home Office and insisted the migrants staying there are “good people”, adding: “We are not criminals. We are not criminals. The noise and protests are bad. We can’t leave the hotel and have been told don’t speak to protesters.
Living in Fear
The Somali asylum seeker revealed that those staying in the hotel have been “living in fear” from local residents who have been frequently protesting outside the building since July.
“I’m not a threat. I’m not a problem. I came for a new life. I want to be part of the country,” Mr Mohamed insisted.
Another migrant in his 30s said he was “pleased”, adding that “it had been a worry” during the legal uncertainty.
The Court of Appeal’s decision means the 138 asylum seekers housed at the Bell Hotel can remain there pending a full trial in October, reversing a High Court ruling from 19 August that would have required their removal by 12 September.
Court Criticises Original Ruling
Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said Mr Justice Eyre had made a “number of errors of principle” that undermined his original decision to grant Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction.
The judges found that the Home Office was “plainly directly affected by the issues in this case” and should have been granted party status in the original proceedings. They warned that piecemeal injunctions by local planning authorities could have a “cumulative impact”, shifting the burden of housing asylum seekers to other areas.
Lord Justice Bean also warned that giving weight to local protests “runs the risk of acting as an impetus or incentive for further protests”, adding: “At its worst, if even unlawful protests are to be treated as relevant, there is a risk of encouraging further lawlessness.
Protests and Criminal Charges
The hotel has become the focal point of protests which have spread across the country in the last month, after an asylum seeker living there was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity, and one count of harassment without violence. He denies all charges and is currently on trial at Colchester Magistrates’ Court.
The alleged incident, which prosecutors claim involved Kebatu attempting to kiss the schoolgirl after she offered him a slice of pizza, sparked waves of protests outside the hotel. Some demonstrations turned violent, with police officers assaulted and vehicles damaged during protests in July and August.
Another resident at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, including two counts of common assault, four counts of assault by beating, and one count of sexual assault on a male.
Political Backlash
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the court judgement meant illegal migrants had “more rights than the British people”, claiming: “The Government has used the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against the people of Epping. Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.
Leader of the Conservatives, Kemi Badenoch, whose North West Essex constituency includes Epping, added: “This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end. I say to Conservative councils seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels – keep going!
She accused Labour of putting “the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities”, adding: “Every case has different circumstances, and I know good Conservative councils will keep fighting for residents, so we will keep working with them every step of the way.
Home Office Response
Responding to the decision, Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle said: “This government will close all hotels by the end of this Parliament and we appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day.
She insisted: “It will take some time to fix the broken system we inherited, but the British public deserve nothing less, and we will not stop until the job is done.”
The Home Office had argued during the appeal that removing the refugees could damage the asylum accommodation system, which has a statutory duty to house destitute asylum seekers while their claims are processed.
Council Vows to Continue Fight
Epping Forest District Council expressed deep disappointment with the outcome but vowed to continue its legal battle. Councillor Ken Williamson, member of the council’s cabinet, said outside court: “We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of today’s hearing. While Epping Forest has brought the wider asylum seeker debate into sharp national focus, the concern and motivation of Epping Forest District Council throughout has been the wellbeing of our local residents.
The council confirmed that while the temporary injunction has been lifted, the case for a final injunction is still to be heard in October. “Our battle on behalf of our residents will continue. A few weeks from now we will be back in court where we trust the strength of our case will still prevail,” the council said in a statement.
Continued Protests
Following the ruling, a small number of protesters gathered outside the hotel on Friday night, with police implementing a Section 60AA dispersal order from 9.30pm. The protesters waved England and Union flags as police guarded the entrance.
The order, which was in place for 24 hours, gave police the power to ask anyone to remove items such as face masks being used to conceal their identity.
Local residents have expressed frustration at the court’s decision. Mother Lindsey Thompson had previously said: “We choose to live here because it’s a really safe, lovely town to live in, and since the hotel has been taken over, we no longer feel safe because these are people who have illegally arrived unvetted.
Wider Implications
The case has prompted councils across England, controlled by Labour, Conservatives and Reform UK, to investigate whether they could pursue similar legal challenges. These include Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral councils, Tory-run Broxbourne and East Lindsey councils, and Reform’s Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire councils.
Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon warned that while the government was successful in its appeal, the reality of using hotels to house asylum seekers is “untenable. He said: “Waiting until 2029 to end their use is no longer an option. As long as hotels remain open, they will continue to be flashpoints for protests, fuelling division and leaving people who have fled war and persecution feeling unsafe.
The Bell Hotel had previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, from October 2022 to April 2024, and since April 2025, though this year marked the first time the council had taken enforcement action.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
