Furious Epping residents have vowed to continue their protests after the Home Office won an appeal against the closure of their local migrant hotel.
Essex police had been anticipating trouble, with as many as four marked vans parked on the forecourt from early in the afternoon, and ten officers stood outside the controversial accommodation, with migrants reportedly advised to stay indoors..
It comes as the Court of Appeal set aside an injunction granted earlier this month which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex beyond September 12.
Today, the judges also ruled that the Home Office could intervene in the case, in a significant victory for the Government.
Lawyers for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had argued that shutting the hotel would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ that would have encouraged similar litigation by other councils.
The decision has enraged Essex locals who have been protesting outside the hotel for weeks. Tonight they took to the streets as well as those further afield in of Chichester, Cheshunt and Bournemouth taking part in anti-immigration demos.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the move showed Prime Minister Keir Starmer ‘puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities.’
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage echoed this sentiment, writing on X: ‘Illegal migrants have more rights than the people of Essex. Reform UK will put an end to this.’
Protesters wave flags outside the Bell Hotel following the major ruling
There was a heavy police presence outside the Bell Hotel before today’s ruling
A woman waves a union jack flag outside of the Park Hotel in Chichester
There were fresh protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping last night prior to today’s ruling
A group of women protesters against asylum seekers being housed in hotels gather outside The Roundhouse in Bournemouth
Elsewhere, anti-immigration demonstrators protested wearing St George’s flags outside The Delta Marriott Hotel in Cheshunt
Shortly after the High Court ruling, protest organiser Sarah White, 40, said the community was ‘outraged by the decision’.
‘This sends a deeply troubling message to our community – that the rights of asylum seekers are being placed above the rights of the residents.
‘We are especially concerned that many of the men being housed here are undocumented, and some have already been arrested for crimes of sexual harassment against young women and children in our community,’ she added.
‘This is unacceptable and raises serious questions about public safety and accountability. As residents, we feel abandoned. Our community will not stay silent.’
Within minutes of the judges’ decision local Conservative councillor Shane Yerrell, 42, turned up at the scene, lambasting the move as ‘disgusting’.
‘I’ve just been on the phone with the father of the girl whose sexual assault case involving one of the migrants has been in court this week.
‘This decision is disgusting for them. They’ve been through so much.
‘And it’s not just the two sexual assaults – I’ve been told of five or six other incidents, where children have been followed home from school by people from the hotel, asked for their Snapchats, and told ‘You’re pretty’.
‘Local mums and dads want the hotel closed – as the first judgement said.
A protester holds a St George’s Cross outside the Court of Appeal this afternoon
Father-of-one Mr Yerrell, a mental health support worker who also raises funds for charity in his remaining spare time, added: ‘I’m not a racist. I have friends who are people of colour.
‘And when the Bell Hotel started taking migrants in 2020, originally women and children, I fully supported it.
‘I’m not saying migrants shouldn’t be put in hotels. But when hotels have a record like this, they should be shut down straight away.
‘There may be some lovely people in the Bell Hotel – but there’s a few that are definitely not. And this is within a couple of hundred metres of a secondary school.
‘Because of this court decision, there are going to be more protests.
‘The kids go back to school next week – and if anything else happens to a child, that’s on the Government’s heads.’
Other locals appeared to show their support by blasting car horns, and tooting their support for a handful of protesters arriving early on the leafy Bell Common opposite
Some motorists could be heard shouting out of their windows: ‘We’re never gonna give up – this country is f*****’, ‘There’s no space in this country’, and ‘Get ’em out’.
The Bell Hotel will continue to be used to house asylum seekers before a full trial of the council’s case
Local councillor Shane Yerrell said the government should ‘hang their heads in shame’
A small number of protesters gathered outside the hotel after the judgement
Elsewhere in Chichester, crowds have gathered outside of the Park Hotel in response to the recent ruling, with anti-migrant demonstrators waving their flags and demanding repatriation
Holly Whitbread, the Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder for Epping Forest District Council, said the ruling was ‘deeply disappointing’ but vowed to continue ‘fighting’ the Home Office.
One previous protester had even gone beyond the wire security barriers placed around the front of the sprawling hotel – which has large extensions behind, towards the fields that back onto it – and tied a St George’s Cross to one of the Bell’s drainpipes.
Local grandmother Anna Hall, 57, who was holding her own mini Union Jack, said: ‘We’re really disappointed. But this is not the end.
”I’ve been to each protest apart from one. Local feeling is very strong. It’s not right, we’ve got unknown illegal men wandering around the town.
‘When will people’s voices be heard?’
The talk of ongoing protests is worrying some residents who are already dismayed by the public demonstrations rocking this leafy spot.
Local office worker Paul Robinson, 43, said: ‘People need to calm down now, please.
‘We need to understand the decision, and feelings need to cool down. There’s so much anger, it’s wrong. I don’t think shouting at the hotel and the migrants will now help.’
A St George’s Cross daubed on a sign outside the Bell Hotel
Crowds gathered outside of the Park Hotel in response to the recent High Court ruling
Anti-immigration protesters stand with union jack flags smiling outside of the Park Hotel in Chichester
A counter demonstrator holds a sign which reads, ‘sanctuary’ with several red hearts drawn across it
Anti immigration protests have taken place outside the Park Hotel in Chichester, were migrants are believed to be housed, in recent weeks
Elsewhere in Chichester, crowds have gathered outside of the Park Hotel in response to the recent ruling, with anti-migrant demonstrators waving their flags and demanding repatriation.
On the opposite site of the roundabout, in front of the hotel have called for unity and peace, with Green Party councillor, Sarah Sharp, saying a stand needed to be made ‘show not everybody is represented by the far right.’
‘They are taking over the flag and setting the agenda at the moment. There are mostly families, women and children in this hotel.
‘It is important we are not walked over and we show the refugees they do have support and we stand for love, compassion, dignity and we welcome people.
‘It’s a whole different value system. We have a Christian belief system and we should stand up and practise those values.’
Protest numbers were down on the week before, where police made an arrest after counter demonstrators were intimidated as they left the scene.
Last week, the High Court ruled that all 138 asylum seekers at the hotel should be temporarily removed following legal action brought by Epping Forest District Council.
Yesterday the Home Office and owners of the Bell asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider the judgement.
They also stand with British flags on their umbrellas amid fury after a judge ruled asylum seekers can stay in The Bell Hotel in Epping
On the other side of the roundabout, residents call for peace and unity with one woman holding a sign which reads: ‘Welcome refugees’
More signs from counter protesters read: ‘Refugee families welcomed here’, and ‘please don’t scare them’
Quashing the injunction, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said Mr Justice Eyre – who granted the interim injunction last week – ‘made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision’.
‘We grant permission to appeal, both to Somani and to [the Home Office]… We allow the appeals and we set aside the injunction imposed on 19 August 2025,’ he continued.
The judges also ruled that the Home Office could intervene in the case, saying that Mr Justice Eyre made an ‘erroneous’ decision not to let the department be involved.
Reading a summary of their decision, Lord Justice Bean said the Home Office had a ‘constitutional role relating to public safety’ and was affected by the issues. A full trial of the council’s case against the hotel will be held in October.
He continued: ‘The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.’
He added that such an injunction ‘may incentivise’ other councils to take similar steps to Epping Forest.
He said: ‘The potential cumulative impact of such ad hoc applications was a material consideration… that was not considered by the judge.’
Quashing the injunction, Lord Justice Bean said Mr Justice Eyre – who granted it last week – ‘made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision’
Mr Justice Bean sat with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb
The judge also said that the appeals were ‘not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise’.
Touching on local residents’ concerns, Lord Justice Bean said: ‘The Epping residents’ fear of crime was properly taken into account by the judge as a factor in favour of grant of an injunction. He described it as being of limited weight.’
He added: ‘We agree it is relevant, but in our view, it is clearly outweighed… by the undesirability of incentivising protests, by the desirability in the interests of justice of preserving the status quo for the relatively brief period leading up to the forthcoming trial and by the range of public interest factors which we have discussed in our judgement.’
The full written judgement in the case, which Lord Justice Bean said runs to over 120 paragraphs, will be provided later.
Ms Badenoch urged Conservative councillors seeking similar injunctions to ‘KEEP GOING!’ despite the ruling.
She said: ‘Local communities should not pay the price for Labour’s total failure on illegal immigration.
‘This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end. I say to Conservative councils seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels – KEEP GOING!
‘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.’
Protesters march towards the Bell Hotel this evening, waving England flags and Union Jacks
A protester holding a Union Jack flag near the Bell Hotel this afternoon
She said the party will be writing to all Tory councillors with further advice following the judgement.
She added: ‘Labour have run out of options, so the only answer left is to dump the problem on local communities.’
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick blasted the decision as ‘extremely disappointing’.
He said: ‘Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money – your money – to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
‘The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the ‘national interest’.
‘In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people. Well, they are not.
‘The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.
‘But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?’
Anti-immigration Protesters block the road as Police attempt to hold them back, outside The Delta Marriott Hotel today
A masked man faces off with a police officer in Cheshunt outside the hotel believed to house migrants
A man appears to be shouting as he wears an English flag at protests in Cheshunt today
Local Tory councillor Shane Yerrell said the Government should ‘hang their heads in shame’.
‘This decision will cause chaos. Why did the Home Secretary not step in before?’ he said.
Meanwhile, the council itself vowed to ‘continue to fight’ the Home Office following today’s ruling.
Speaking before the verdict, Labour MP Stephen Kinnock claimed a wave of hotel closures sparked by the original High Court ruling could have led to many of their residents becoming homeless.
‘It’s not a question of if we close the hotels, it’s a question of when and how we close the hotels, and what we don’t want to have is a disorderly discharge from every hotel in the country, which would actually have far worse consequences than what we currently have, in terms of the impact that would have on asylum seekers potentially living destitute in the streets,’ he told Sky News.
‘And I don’t think any one of the communities that are campaigning on this hotel issue want to see that.
‘So what we are doing is looking to appeal this injunction simply because we’re taking a pragmatic approach to how we want to manage the process, not because we believe that the hotel… per se should stay open.’
The Home Office had also appealed against Mr Justice Eyre’s decision last week not to let it intervene in the case, with this challenge also allowed by the Court of Appeal.
Protesters hold a banner reading ‘protect our kids’ during a protest earlier this month
The Bell became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl last month.
Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the offence and has been on trial this week.
Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said that the interim injunction ‘runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around other asylum accommodation’.
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said in written submissions yesterday that Mr Justice Eyre ‘overlooked’ the ‘hardship’ that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.
He continued that the ‘extremely high-profile nature of the issue’ created a ‘risk of a precedent being set’.
The hotel first housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021.
It accommodated single adult males from October 2022 to April 2024, and has done so again since April this year.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch urged Conservative councillors seeking similar injunctions to ‘KEEP GOING!’ despite the ruling
The council never previously took enforcement action, with its barristers telling the Court of Appeal that its previous use as asylum seeker accommodation had been ‘unproblematic’.
Opposing the appeal bids, barrister Philip Coppel KC stated in written submissions that the case ‘sets no precedent’ and there was ‘no compelling reason’ for the injunction to be overturned.
He continued: ‘There was no error of law in the judge’s approach, and his decision, based on a carefully calibrated assessment of the relevant factors, was open to him.
‘Notwithstanding the public controversy surrounding the judge’s decision, it was based on the conventional application of well-settled and agreed principles of law.’
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage previously hailed the High Court decision as a ‘victory’ and said he hoped it ‘provides inspiration to others across the country’.
He also indicated that the 12 councils where Reform UK was the largest party would consider legal challenges.
The latest Home Office data, published last week as part of the usual quarterly immigration statistics, shows there were 32,059 asylum seekers in UK hotels by the end of June.
This was up from 29,585 at the same point a year earlier, when the Conservatives were still in power, but down slightly on the 32,345 figure at the end of March.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper appealed against the High Court ruling ordering the Bell Hotel to be closed
An aerial view of the site in Epping, Essex
Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister for Border Security and Asylum, said following the verdict: ‘We inherited a chaotic asylum accommodation system costing billions. This government will close all hotels by the end of this Parliament and we appealed this judgement 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.
‘The number of hotels has almost halved since its peak in 2023 and we have brought down costs by 15 per cent, saving £700m and putting us on track to save a billion pounds a year by 2028-29.
‘We are also working hard to relieve pressure on the system and striking back at criminal people-smuggling gangs at every stage, including returning more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here, equipping law enforcement with counter-terror-style powers and starting to detain small boat arrivals under our groundbreaking deal with France.
‘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.’
Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Lisa Foster of Richard Buxton Solicitors, which represents Somani Hotels, said: ‘We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the injunction should not have been granted by the High Court.
‘Our clients realise that they have been caught in the middle of a much wider debate on the treatment of asylum seekers and respectfully ask that members of the public understand that the Bell Hotel has simply been providing a contracted service that the government requires.
‘We now ask that all associated with the Bell Hotel are left alone to continue to support the government’s asylum plans as best they can.
‘We are grateful to the Court of Appeal for appreciating the urgency of the matter from everyone’s point of view and dealing with the matter so swiftly. We have no further comment and will not be commenting on the matter again.’
