The Home Office cautioned that closing an asylum hotel in Epping could lead to widespread protests nationwide, urging caution to prevent escalating tensions. Legal representatives of the government sought to overturn a court ruling mandating the removal of migrants from the Bell Hotel by contesting for a temporary injunction. The decision had created a stir among ministers following the High Court’s deadline for evacuating asylum seekers by September 12.
While Keir Starmer aims to shut down all asylum hotels by 2029, the Home Office emphasized the need for a methodical approach. The department’s lawyer, Edward Brown KC, highlighted that shutting down one site would necessitate identifying alternative accommodation capacity elsewhere. The ripple effect of the Epping hotel ruling has prompted several local councils to consider legal challenges against asylum hotels in their jurisdictions.
The government’s concern lies in potential protests spurred by the closure of the Epping hotel, as seen in various regions like Wakefield, London, and Stevenage, where demonstrations turned violent with multiple arrests. The Home Office faces challenges in relocating over 130 asylum seekers from the Epping Hotel promptly due to accommodation shortages amid ongoing migrant arrivals. Labour aims to close the Epping hotel eventually, aligning with its commitment to phase out all asylum hotels by the end of the current Parliament.
Health minister Stephen Kinnock highlighted the risk of leaving asylum seekers destitute if the hotel closes abruptly, emphasizing the need for a managed transition. The Home Office invoked Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prioritizing the protection of individuals from inhumane treatment over local planning issues raised by Epping council.
Anticipating a domino effect, the Home Office warned that closing the Epping hotel could trigger similar closure attempts nationwide, exacerbating the accommodation crisis for asylum seekers. The department emphasized the critical balance between respecting human rights obligations under the ECHR and addressing planning considerations raised by local authorities.
The Home Office acknowledged the seriousness of alleged crimes involving three asylum seekers at the hotel, under police investigation. Despite the criminal activities, the government emphasized that such incidents were not grounds for immediate closure. The legal battle between the Home Office and Epping council focused on the motivation behind the closure bid, with the government asserting that it was driven by protest rather than planning infractions.
Mr. Brown KC criticized Epping Forest District Council for its lack of significant planning concerns at the hotel, implying that the council’s actions were primarily driven by protest issues. The council’s decision not to take enforcement action against the hotel owner, Somani Hotels, further underscored the nuanced nature of the legal dispute.
The information collected through cookies and identifiers on this site is utilized to enhance user experience, analyze site usage, and provide personalized advertising. Users can opt out of data sharing by clicking the relevant button on the webpage. By using the site and its services, users implicitly consent to the use of cookies and the practices outlined in the Privacy Notice and Terms and Conditions.