country, towns and cities uh up and down
the UK seeing protests outside asylum
hotels. We've seen um St. George's flags
being flown across large parts of the
country. And this has become a real uh
issue that no doubt many eyes around the
country will be watching this decision
in the court of appeal. for the home
office. If the court of appeals says
yes, this injunction, this interim
injunction stands, the asylum seekers
must leave. That's a headache for the
home office because other councils have
already indicated that they will seek
similar injunctions to try to remove
asylum seekers from hotels in their
areas too. Some of those councils
actually labor councils looking to
follow in the footsteps of Eping Forest
District Council in in using basically a
technicality of planning law to get
asylum seekers removed. They argued that
it was a breach of planning rules to use
a hotel for the housing of asylum
seekers. So, all eyes on what will
happen. Look, there's there is you can
see a a small police presence here.
There are barriers up. We've seen one or
two asylum seekers coming in and out of
the hotel. There is security here. We've
not seen any protesters turning up. One
or two local residents have come down.
There's obviously a media presence, so
people taking photographs of that. But
this has become really the epicenter for
an issue that has become the key
political issue of this summer. The
issue of smallboat arrivals. Of course,
we've seen large numbers in recent days
and and where those asylum seekers are
housed and anger over the the continued
use of hotels for housing those asylum
seekers.
>> Okay, Becky Johnson there reporting for
us in Eping. It is uh just gone 2:00.
You're watching Sky News today and our
coverage as Abecku was saying there of
the decision by the Court of Appeal
expected very very shortly as to whether
or not they will uh grant appeal to that
injunction put in place as Becky was
explaining stopping asylum seekers from
being housed at the Bell Hotel in Eping.
Uh it's going to be at the moment as
Becky was saying that the home office
will be hoping goes in their favor as
well as in the favor of Sani Hotels
group who are the proprietors of the
Bell Hotel. Many watching on to see
whether or not these three judges who
are sitting and have been deliberating
uh for uh coming up for uh nearly a day
now. Lady Justice Davis, Lord Justice
Bean, and Lord Justice Cobb. their
decision whether or not they'll overturn
that interim injunction put in place uh
by Lord Justice here. Uh let's uh bring
back in our correspondent Becky Johnson
who was following this for us from
Eping. And Becky, look, you're outside
the Bell Hotel, the scene of those
protests for the past few weeks. What is
the sense there of people as they await
this verdict?
Well, there were some angry scenes here
last night and that's because of what
the uh KC for the home office had argued
in in this proceeding um effectively uh
saying that the the interests being
argued over so the human rights of the
asylum seekers to have accommodation
versus the interests of local people the
the lawyer saying they weren't equal
interests and many of the protesters
took that to mean that the the human
rights of the asylum seekers was was
trumping their their anger at having
them living here in their community. So,
we did see uh a protest here last night.
There is anger. If you go down the high
street, you can see St. George's flag
flying, the Union Jack flying from lamp
post as as indeed we've seen across many
towns and cities. Um at the moment, as I
say, um no protesters here, just a just
a small police presence. And I think
really people will be waiting to watch
to see what the court of appeal decides.
I think this will have ramifications of
course not just for this hotel but for
the many hotels where we've seen
protests, the many communities who have
come out um in protest against having
asylum seekers in their areas.
>> Becky, thank you for that. Let's take
you now inside of the court of appeal.
You can see Lady Justice Davis, Lord
Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Cobb uh
about to take their seats and uh we
expect they will soon hand down uh their
judgment as to whether or not uh that
appeal
made by the Home Office against an
injunction was put in place by Lord
Justice Era a couple of weeks ago which
stopped asylum seekers from being housed
at the Bell Hotel. will uh be
overturned. Whether or not these three
justices will rule in the home office's
favor, we're about to find out once uh
three individuals take their seat and
hand down that judgment. The decisions
that are made here will of course have
ramifications
all across the country. Other councils,
not just Eping Forest District Council,
have been looking at whether or not they
can close asylum hotels in their area.
Let's listen in. to over 120 paragraphs.
>> In accordance with the court's usual
practice, the full text will be supplied
to the party's legal teams today for
checking for any typographical errors or
factual errors such as, for example, a
wrong date or reference. The judgment is
not supplied at this stage for further
argument.
As soon as the parties have had the
opportunity to carry out these checks,
the full text will be uploaded to the
national archive and will be published
on the judicial website. This summary
will be published on the judiciary
website as soon as practicable after
this hearing.
These are two linked applications for
permission to appeal before the court.
The applications were listed for oral
hearing yesterday on the 28th of August
2025
with the appeals to follow.
The first of the applications is brought
by the secretary of state for the home
department
uh home secretary and the second by
Samani hotels limited Samani. The
respondent to both appeals is Eping
Forest District Council, the council.
The appeals themselves both concern the
grant to the council of a temporary i.e.
timelmited injunction by Mr. Justice the
judge on 19th August 2025.
That injunction was granted pursuant to
section 187B of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, the 1990 act to
restrain Sanmani from using the Bell
Hotel at High Road Bell Common Eping
Essex. The hotel as accommodation for
asylum seekers. The council argues in
this case that Sanmani's actions are in
breach of planning law.
Section 187B of the 1990 act provides
that quote where a local planning
authority consider it necessary or
expedient for any actual or apprehended
breach of planning control to be
restrained by injunction. They may apply
to the court for an injunction.
Section 187B2
provides the court with a wide
discretion in relation to the grant of
an injunction
i.e. as the court thinks appropriate for
the purpose of restraining the breach.
The temporary injunction granted in this
case was to last for only a relatively
brief period until the trial of the
council's claim at which a high court
judge will consider and determine the
council's application for a permanent
injunction and declaration.
This is listed for a trial date in
midocctober 2025.
That is approximately 7 weeks from now.
We should say at the outset what this
appeal hearing 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 issues for determination by this
court can be summarized as follows. A
prior to giving his judgment on the
council's application for the temporary
injunction, the judge gave a short oral
ruling explaining why he was refusing
permission to the home secretary to
become a party an intervenor to the
council's injunction application. We
consider in this appeal whether the
judge was wrong to do so.
The judge went on uh B. The judge went
on to grant the temporary injunction to
restrain the continued provision of
accommodation to asylum seekers at the
hotel pending the trial. In this respect
too, we consider whether he was wrong to
do so.
Background facts. The hotel is situated
on the outskirts of the center of Eping.
It is currently owned and run by Smani.
The council is the local planning
authority for the district of Eping. The
hotel currently accommodates
approximately
138 asylum seekers. The provision of
this accommodation is under contract
between Samani and Corporal Travel
Management North Limited, CTM,
a service provider contracted by the
Home Office to provide accommodation to
asylum seekers.
This is the third period in the hotel's
recent history in which it has been used
for the provision of accommodation for
Previously it was used in this respect A
between 22nd May 2020 and 4th March 2021
and B between October 2022 and April
2024.
At no time during these earlier periods
between 20 and 2024
did the council take steps to restrain
Sanmani from providing accommodation at
the hotel for asylum seekers
within the second period uh uh uh
referred to uh uh above.
Specifically in February 2023,
Sanmani applied to the council for
planning permission for a temporary
change of use, i.e. to accommodate
asylum seekers rather than operating the
hotel for paying members of the public.
Sanmani did so without prejudice to its
legal position that the hotel could
lawfully temporarily accommodate asylum
seekers under contract with the home
office
for over a year. The council did not
deal with Simmani's application,
notwithstanding the statutory duty to
deal with such an application within 8
weeks.
As the contract between Sani and the
Home Office came to an end in or about
April 2024,
Sani withdrew its application for
temporary change of use. For about one
year, the hotel was closed.
In March 2025, Sanmani entered into a
contract with CTM
to provide exclusive use of the hotel
for one year for the purpose of
short-term accommodation for asylum
seekers. The council was aware of this
plan and and confirmed its agreement to
a maximum of 138 residents for the
hotel.
In April 2025, the hotel reopened,
providing accommodation for up to 138
single adult male asylum seekers. The
council informed Simani that it would
need to seek permission for a change of
use of the hotel.
On 15th May 2025, Sanmani having taken
advice from the Home Office informed the
council
in writing
that it would not be submitting a
temporary application for a change of
use. The council did not reply.
On 11th August, without any prior
pre-action notice, either formal or
informal to Sani or the Home Office, the
council issued injunction proceedings
against Sanmani
under section 187B of the 1990 act to
restrain the use of the hotel as a
matter of planning control for
accommodating asylum seekers.
The council also sought a temporary
interim injunction pending trial.
It sought a declaration that the current
use of the hotel does not amount to use
as a hotel,
which is the permitted use of the
premises for the purposes of planning
control.
The documents were formally served on
Simmani on 12th August.
Since April 2025, three arrests have
been made by the police in respect of
individuals accommodated at the hotel
and criminal charges have been brought
against the individuals.
One incident is reported to have
occurred on 8th July
and involved alleged sexual assaults,
incitement of a girl to engage in sexual
activity and harassment without
violence.
This has unsurprisingly attracted
considerable interest in local and
national media.
Since July 2025, there have been largely
continuous protests outside the hotel.
The focus of the protests is that the
hotel should no longer be used to house
asylum seekers. Some of the protests
have involved violent and disorderly
incidents.
As of 3rd August, the police reported
that 25 people had been arrested in
connection with offenses at these
protests and 16 people had been charged
with criminal offenses.
The application for an injunction under
Planning Act 1990.
The hearing of the council's application
for a temporary injunction was listed
before the judge on Friday 15th August
2025.
By the by this time the home office had
received informal notice of the
application but was neither present nor
represented at the hearing. The judge
reserved his judgment in relation to the
application for the temporary injunction
until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday 19th August.
On Monday 18th August, the government
legal department issued an application
for the home secretary to be joined as a
party to the litigation.
This application was considered by the
judge on 19th August prior to the
delivery of his reserve judgment. The
application was supported by Simmani but
opposed by the council.
In a short oral judgment, the judge gave
his reasons for refusing the home
secretary's application for party
status. In short, he concluded that it
was not quote desirable unquote,
a term used in the civil procedure
rules, for the home secretary to be a
The judge then went on to hand down his
reserve judgment. In that judgment, he
gave his reasons for granting the
council the temporary injunction.
Under the terms of the injunction,
Sanmani was restrained from using the
hotel
for accommodating asylum seekers,
however, howsoever described or for
using the hotel otherwise than as a
The upshot of the injunction is that all
uh 138 asylum seekers currently resident
at the hotel uh will need to be
relocated by 12th September pending the
final hearing in October.
The Home Secretary and Simani promptly
issued applications for permission to
appeal to this court.
They were listed before us for hearing
yesterday.
Given the importance and urgency of the
matter, we are giving judgment today.
The court of appeals decision on the
home secretary's appeal relating to
joiner as an intervenor to the council's
application.
The court of appeal grants the home
secretary's application for permission
to appeal against the decision
dismissing her application for party
status and further grants the home
secretary intervenous status in the
litigation between the council and
simani.
The Home Secretary has clear statutory
duties towards asylum seekers in this
country under the immigration and asylum
act 1999.
These include the duty to provide
support to them and their dependent and
to prevent destitution
uh among this cohort.
Given these duties, I I in addition to
her constitutional role relating to
public safety, the home secretary is
plainly directly affected by the issues
in this case and specifically by the
grant or not of uh an injunction to
restrain the provision of accommodation
for the asylum seekers at the hotel.
On an application for party status, the
court will consider whether quote it is
desirable to add the new party so that
the court can resolve all the matters in
dispute in the proceedings unquote. Uh
civil procedure rule 19.22.
The judge failed to give this rule the
wide interpretation
uh it required which led to his
erroneous finding that the home
secretary's application should be
refused.
He failed to have any or any adequate
regard to the range of issues which
would be likely to arise if the
injunction were granted. These included,
but were not limited to, the significant
practical challenge of relocating a
large number of asylum seekers in a
short space of time and possibly only
for a matter of a few weeks between 12th
September and mid October. uh when the
uh uh trial is to take place.
If the council's application were to
fail at trial, the hotel would be
permitted to continue to operate as it
is at present.
The judge denied himself the opportunity
to consider the wider range of public
interest factors which would be relevant
to this application. These, in our view,
rendered it more than just merely
desirable that the home secretary be
enabled to participate uh in in the
court process. The judge needed to put
himself in a position to determine the
application from the most informed
perspective.
The Home Office was in a strong position
to provide evidence relevant to the
disputes and issues before the court at
this interim stage and at the final
hearing.
We were unpersuaded that it would be
sufficient for the home office to
provide evidence for Somani to file.
The provision of key evidence by someone
outside the litigation to someone within
the litigation hardly meets the
expectation of a right to be heard.
Moreover, the judge appeared to apply a
test of necessity to the question of
joiner, which placed the bar for joiner
too high.
While the judge was entitled to be
concerned that the home office had
applied very late for the home secretary
to be made a party to the litigation,
that did not, in our view, justify
excluding her from the proceedings.
We turn now to the substantive issue of
whether an interim injunction should
have been granted.
This court takes uh as its starting
point that an interlocatory injunction
is a discretionary remedy. It is not
open to this court to set aside the
exercise of the judge's discretion
simply because the three of us would
have exercised it differently. It is our
role to review that decision and only
interfere with it if we identify a flaw
or flaws in the judge's treatment of the
question to be decided
such as an error of law,
a gap in logic or a failure to take
account of some material factor which
undermines the coency of the conclusion.
We conclude that the judge made a number
of errors of principle which undermine
his decision.
The wider picture. The provision of
accommodation for asylum seekers
pursuant to the home secretary's
statutory duty is a national issue
requiring a structured response.
Ad hoc interim injunction applications
seeking closure of particular sites may
each have some individual merit, but the
judge's approach ignores the obvious
consequence that closure of one site
means that capacity needs to be
identified elsewhere in the system and
may incentivize
local planning authorities who wish to
move asylum accommodation from their
area to apply to the court urgently
before capacity elsewhere in the system
becomes exhausted.
The potential cumulative impact of such
ad hoc applications
was a material consideration within the
balance of convenience but was not
considered by the judge perhaps because
he did not have the advantage
in reaching his decision of evidence and
submissions from the home office.
the arguments on behalf of the Home
Secretary in this uh uh
sorry, the written arguments on behalf
of the Home Secretary in this appeal
included the contention that quote the
relevant public interests in play are
not equal," unquote, and that one aspect
of this is that the Home Secretary
statutory duty is a manifestation of the
UK's obligations s under article 3 of
the European convention on human rights.
This point was not pursued in oral
Uh any argument in this particular
context about a hierarchy of rights is
in our view unattractive.
The incentivization of protests.
We were told by council for Eping that
the protests operated as a trigger for
the application for the injunction.
The fact of protests outside the
building is not obviously a matter
falling within planning control.
While we accept that the judge was right
to exercise considerable caution before
attaching weight to the fact of the
protests, including unlawful protests
outside the hotel, uh he nonetheless
gave weight in his evaluation to the
fact that protests were occurring and
weighed them in the balance as a factor
in favor of granting the injunction.
These are worrying aspects of the
judgment.
If an outbreak of protests enhances the
case for a planning injunction,
this runs the risk of acting as an
impetus or incentive for further
protests, some of which may be
disorderly around asylum accommodation.
At its worst, if even unlawful protests
are to be treated as relevant, there is
a risk of encouraging further
lawlessness.
The judge does not appear to have
considered this risk uh again perhaps
because he had denied himself the
advantage of hearing submissions on the
merits from council for the home
secretary.
Further and in any event, in this
regard, the judge failed to consider
whether there would have been
alternative measures um uh to mitigate
the
disruption
such as the use of police powers under
the Public Order Act 1986
or an application by the council to
restrain unlawful protests.
Eping's delay for much of the period of
four years from 2020 to 24
uh Sanmani had been running the hotel as
accommodation for asylum seekers without
enforcement action from the council
when in 2023 Sanmani sought planning
consent to change its use for over a
year. Eping did not process the
application notwithstanding the
statutory duty upon it to do so within 8
weeks. The council was aware by 2025
that the hotel was once again to be used
to house asylum seekers.
And by its letter of
15 May 2025,
Sanmani made clear that it had been
advised by the home office that a
planning application was unnecessary.
The council took no steps in response to
this letter, whether by issuing an
enforcement notice or otherwise. There
was no threat of court proceedings.
Simony was first made aware of any step
of this kind when it received the court
papers and the court bundle running to
over 1,600 pages together with a
detailed skeleton argument prepared by
leading and junior council.
The tactics used on the council's behalf
in this regard were not only
procedurally unfair to Sani, but ought
to have reinforced the argument that the
delay was a significant factor in the
balance against the grant of interim
relief.
Sanmani's actions wrongly characterized
as deliberate. The judge found as a fact
that Simmani had acted quote
deliberately unquote in declining to
seek change of use permission uh under
planning law after April 2025.
He was critical of them for taking this
line. He was wrong in both respects.
Those undeserved criticisms which were
repeated several times in the judgment
plainly played a material part in the
judge's ultimate decision. If the
council had considered Sanmani to be in
breach of planning laws, it could have
taken enforcement measures provided for
within the 1990 act. It did not do so.
In short, the judge's exercise of
discretion in this case was seriously
flawed by his erroneous reliance on the
quote deliberate breach unquote as a
significant factor in favor of the grant
of an interim injunction.
The temporary nature of the injunction.
We emphasize here, as we did at the
outset, that the issue for the judge in
August was whether to grant a temporary
injunction until the trial in October.
The judge appears to have given very
little weight to the desiraability of
preserving the status quo until that
point.
the risk of injustice to the residents
of the hotel by being dispersed by 12th
September when the trial of the claim
was to take place only some 6 weeks
later seems to have had oddly little
resonance with the judge.
In all of the circumstances, we consider
on these issues that the judge's
approach
to the balance of convenience exercise
was seriously flawed. In principle, the
exercise of his discretion can therefore
be reviewed on appeal.
The Eping resident's fear of crime was
properly taken into account by the judge
as a factor in favor of the grant of an
injunction. He described it as being of
limited weight. The appellants do not
say it was irrelevant. The council does
not say it should be decisive.
We agree that it is relevant, but in our
view it is clearly outweighed in the
American cyanomid balancing exercise
by the undesirability of incentivizing
protests,
by the desiraability 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 judgment.
Therefore, we grant permission to appeal
both to Sanmani and the Home Secretary
against the grant of the interim
injunction. We allow the appeals and we
set aside the injunction imposed on 19
August 2025.
The case management directions given by
the judge can remain in force subject to
any amendment necessitated by the joiner
of the home secretary uh as an
intervenor.
We direct that submissions on costs are
to be exchanged and filed by 12 noon on
Monday 1st uh September. uh uh uh along
with any um uh
uh suggested
typographical or factual uh uh
corrections which come to council's
attention. We end by recording our
gratitude to council for their helpful
submissions.
[Music]
Well, that was Lord Justice Bean in the
Court of Appeal uh deciding along with
the three other justices there, Lady
Justice Davis and Lord Justice Cobb that
the temporary injunction that would have
blocked asylum seekers from being housed
at the Bell Hotel has now been
overturned. and he has granted the home
secretary as well as Sanmani Group who
own the Bell Hotel permission to appeal
the original decision. Uh let's bring in
our correspondent Becky Johnson who is
following this for us. So Becky, the
government has won at this stage. More
stages to come.
>> Yes. and protesters against the asylum
seekers being here, who've been taking
to the streets for the last few weeks,
who were jubilant last week when this
interim injunction was granted, meaning
the asylum seekers would have to be out
by the end of next week. Well, they no
doubt will feel angry uh at this
decision by the court of appeal. Uh it
was quite a lengthy decision um but
found flaws essentially in what the high
court judge had ruled essentially saying
that the the um residents here in Eping
their fear of crime had properly been
taken into account. They they he said he
agrees it's relevant but clearly
outweighed by the undesirability of
incentivizing protests. Now essentially
what the the judge was saying there was
that while Eping Council had partly
argued that they wanted the asylum
seekers out to stop the protests
happening here. What this judge was
saying was well effectively that worked
um if if that interim injunction had
gone ahead and the asylum seekers had
been moved out and therefore that would
incentivize protests uh in other parts
of the country as indeed we've already
been seeing. Um and he also talked about
how other councils would quickly move to
get similar injunctions because there is
clearly limited capacity for asylum
seekers accommodation around the country
and areas would want to be quick off the
mark getting injunctions while there was
still capacity elsewhere in the country
for asylum seekers to be moved to. So
that that was the reasoning behind this.
It will clearly, I think, provoke some
anger here in Eping um and indeed uh in
other communities where people have been
taking to the streets in in recent weeks
um to campaign against asylum seekers
being housed in hotels in their
communities. Now, remember the protests
here uh was sparked when one of the
asylum seekers housed here was charged
with sexual assault uh of a local school
girl. Uh that trial is ongoing. That
anger is still there. In fact, just
across the road, I can see some some
posters that have been left clearly from
a recent protest. Stop violence against
women and girls. There are England
flags, Union Jacks flying here. The
anger is still here. And you know, just
before that that ruling was announced by
the Court of Appeal, um a man drove past
clearly angry, shouted at the police
outside this hotel, "We will never give
up." There is real tension, real anger
in this community about the situation
here at the hotel, clearly sparked by
the arrest and the charging of one of
the asylum seekers for that offense. Um,
but I think those feelings run deep.
Now, we've just in the last few minutes
seen a a drone go up above the hotel. We
think probably a police drone. Um, we've
got quite a light police presence here
at the moment and no protesters here.
But there was actually a demo even last
night before we got this ruling because
a home office lawyer argued in court
yesterday um that the competing
interests uh the human rights of the
asylum seekers and the concerns of
locals were not equal. And that was
taken by people here to mean that the
human rights of the asylum seekers
trumped their concerns and therefore
they took to the streets even before
this decision by the court of appeal. So
um we will we will watch we will wait to
see what the reaction of local people
here is. Now there will be a full trial
on this issue this this planning issue.
It was actually a technicality of
planning that led to the injunction
that's going to be in the middle of
October. And that was another reason for
the court of appeals saying why get
these asylum seekers out just 6 weeks
before there'll be a full hearing on
this matter. So there is still that but
for now the asylum seekers 138 of them
can stay here in Eping when local
residents only last week uh jubilant
that the high court had said they would
have to leave by the end of next week.
>> Okay Becky for now in Eping of course we
will be back with you as the day unfolds
seeing the police are moving into
position behind you. Worth pointing out
as Becky did there uh towards the end
that the full trial of this is still set
for October. One of the reasons given in
the judgment there from Lord Justice
Bean was that if this temporary
injunction were allowed to stand, those
asylum seekers would be moved out by as
Becky said the 12th of September when it
had gone to full trial in October. There
was every chance that the government,
the home office and Sani would win. Then
the asylum seeks would have to be put
back into the Bell Hotel. So, uh, on the
balance, Justice Bean decided that it
was best to, uh, spend set aside that
injunction and grant permission for
appeal. Let's, uh, bring in our chief
political correspondent, John Craig, uh,
for, uh, his take on all of this. John,
good afternoon to you. So, uh, intensely
political, of course, all of this, and
I'm seeing from social media and the
newswires, political reaction has
already begun. The politic the
government's political opponents are
furious with this about this decision.
Uh for example, Robert Genrich as you
might expect first out of the blocks
with his uh uh comments on this. He has
put comments on ex Twitter saying this
is an extremely disappointing decision.
He said I Cooper that's the home
secretary used taxpayer money your money
to keep open a hotel housing illegal
migrants. He said 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're not, says Mr.
Genrich. He said the uh the British
government should always put the
interests of the British people first.
Starman's government has shown itself to
be on the side of illegal migrants who
broken into our country. He went on to
say, "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? Now, the point about this is
that Kemok has spoken to conservative
councils urging them to take the same
sort of legal action as Eping Forest
did. And uh there are number of councils
we've spoken to over the last few weeks
who said they're considering this. Well,
Robert Generick says uh councils can and
should still act. Um Mr. Generick says
his team uh and law for borders will
continue to provide legal assistance to
help protect communities. Uh he's he
says there's no acceptable accommodation
for illegal migrants. The government
should be prioritizing Brits in need and
deporting every illegal migrant as the
last government should have done. He was
a member of it, don't forget. And I've
argued for years. Well, not sure he has
because he was the immigration minister.
Um, and he just said the government
government should be deporting every
illegal migrant. Well, that sounds like
Nigel Farage's policy, doesn't it? That
he came out with earlier this week. Rert
Low, who was a member of Nigel Farage's
uh uh Reform UK party, no longer. Uh he
said uh the Home Office wins its Eping
appeal, a government against its own
people. Um I make no comment about this.
I would just simply gently point out
that uh Lord Justice Bean is a leading
figure in the society of labor lawyers.
He's one of the founding members of the
matrix chambers. Uh the other founding
members were um included Sheree Blair
Booth uh wife of the former prime
minister and Lord Herma the current
attorney general uh has served uh in
matrix chambers as well. Um against that
um as we reported at the time uh judge
justice Steven he who gave that uh uh
the original high court decision that
was the subject of the today's appeal
well he as we've reported before was a
part conservative parliamentary
candidate four times including the
high-profile Hodgej Hill bi-election
which saw Labour's Liam Burn elected. He
stood in Hodgej Hill twice in fact once
in Stabbridge and once in Strangford.
in Northern Ireland in an election where
the Tories fought seats there. So, um
we'll shall see if any of the
politicians make anything of the
political allegiances of the two judges
involved in this row. As for now, well,
Tories and ex-reform MP um are hitting
out at this decision. We await a comment
from the Home Office. I would expect we
will get a reaction um shortly. I've got
another conservative reaction here
actually. Um the uh former home
secretary James Cleverly has said, "I'm
sure I Cooper and the Home Office think
this is good news." It it really isn't.
Cutting local people and their elected
representatives out of the loop is not a
good look. So the you might say that the
government may have won the appeal here,
but their opponents claim they certainly
haven't won the argument. and the Tories
in particular uh will are clearly going
to keep fighting here and Mr. Generick
says they're encouraging other councils
despite today's result uh to take the
same action that Eping Forest took.
>> Indeed. All right, John. For now, thank
you for that. The uh political
backgrounds of the lawyers involved in
this as John says requiring no comment
but there has been of course as you'd
imagine commentary of that on social
media. Now the leader of the
conservatives just as John was finishing
speaking there has posted onto social
media. I think actually Kimmy Bnock's
statement was beaten by Robert Genrix
maybe had it waiting to go and press
send immediately and James Clever. But
let me read you what um Kimmy Bnock has
had to say. She's put a statement out on
uh Twitter um X she says local
communities should not pay the price for
Labour's total failure on illegal
immigration. She goes on the ruling is a
setback but it is not the end. As John
was pointing out there, this bit's
personal from Kemmy Bnock. 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. She
then goes on to say she'll be writing to
Conservative counselors offering advice.
She says she's going to work closely
with Eping Council as they consider next
steps. And then she uh she finishes uh
like this. The fact remains, asylum
hotels are a choice. It was a choice put
in place by the Conservative government.
The Conservative government have the
number of migrant hotels and they closed
down many. It's now down to about just
over 200 under the Labor government,
including the Bell Hotel, which Labour
then reopened. Chem Bay says the
Conservatives were expanding detention
centers while having the number of
hotels because we had a plan for the
removal of illegal arrivals. Instead of
going to court to keep asylum hotels
open or housing illegal immigrants in
private rented accommodation, Kistama
should increase detention capacity
immediately. She says and she says that
conservatives uh could do that. Of
course, they were in power for 14 years.
So many would wonder why it wasn't done
at that time. Now, the government will
say on this as we await their official
response to this uh that they have it in
their manifesto that they plan to close
all asylum hotels by the end of this
parliament's 2029 about 212 I believe
currently open. um they intend to close
all of them. But uh as we've seen from
the reaction from the opposition and
from uh many other people as this legal
proceeding has taken its course, there
is a great desire across the country for
the use of of hotels to house asylum
seekers to be brought to an end as
quickly as possible. Uh let me speak now
to uh human rights lawyer Shu Khan who's
joining us now. Sh Khan, thanks so much
for being with us. We do appreciate your
time. Um so look we sat through uh that
judgment there from Lord Justice Bean.
Uh dense in places but pretty clear in
places. Let me pick out some of the bits
that seemed quite clear. A judge made
errors in principle talking about
justice there in the first instance.
Seriously flawed in principle. Some of
his decisions talking about justice
there as well. And then obviously the
decision there to grant permission for
appeal setting aside the previous
injunction. What's what's your take on
what we heard?
>> Yes. Um so yeah I mean quite a few
points to unpick there but I think
overall it see does seem to be a
sensible decision what the judges
basically saying and one thing to
important to remember is this was
basically a challenge of the interim
injunction which was basically obviously
we're going to have the full case being
heard in October. So within that within
a few weeks do the asylum seekers really
have to leave or can they at least stay
until October when the final decision is
made? Obviously the high court said they
should leave now whereas the court of
appeals said there's no reason to do
that. So obviously what they talk about
from a legal point of view the balance
of convenience which basically means is
leaving them they go time money effort
or will removing them now and in case
later the hotel loses and they have to
be brought back is that going to be
easier and cheaper. So obviously the
court of appeal thinks that there's no
reason to remove them now if within a
few weeks there prospect we might have
to bring them back. Um and then also um
the home office obviously won it appeal
against the refusal to allow it to
intervene. So again at the time and
obviously courts judges are very
particular about court procedures
deadlines you have to apply in time if
you want to become party to a case which
the home office didn't do it applied
very late to become part of the case
therefore it was dismissed but now what
the court of appeal is saying but
considering the importance the national
significance of this issue even if the
home office was late or had missed
deadlines they still should have been
allowed to intervene and the point of
view was completely ignored whereas they
should have been allowed to be a party
to the case.
Yeah, and Justice Bean made it clear at
the beginning of his statement that what
he was going to decide now was not about
the merits of government policy on on
housing asylum seekers. And and on that
point that you made there, Shab Khan, um
the judge said that um he denied himself
the right to hear from the home
secretary and hear about the challenge
that the government put forward in this
um appeal hearing of the um danger that
could happen of there being more
protests.
in front of asylum hotels, which then
may well lead to more councils trying to
bring in injunctions because the judge
in the previous case didn't allow the
home secretary lawyers to make that
argument. He didn't allow himself to to
be persuaded one way or the other and
had decided without the full um suite of
facts. Of course. Um again another point
I mean just generally really quickly I
mean it's interesting how suddenly um in
this case the high court judgment came
out and no one was particularly people
you know on the right let's say no one
was actually criticizing and condemning
a judge for interfering with a
democratically elected government's
policy decisions even though that's what
we've seen over the past decades. Every
time a government a court comes out and
says you know the government should take
another look at something review
something it might have made a mistake.
Those are the attacks we see. um whereas
we we we didn't see that last time. In
fact, most of the people were really
happy that the court had actually
blocked the government um from making
from taking a policy decision.
>> Sure. Look, this is slightly out of your
um of expertise. I imagine someone asked
you a question about sort of planning
law. I know you're a human rights
lawyer, but something the judge said,
Justice Bean said a couple of times
which I thought interesting um which I
didn't realize prior to this was that
Sani had applied for a change of use of
Eping Hotel back in 2023. Uh, Lord
Justice Bean seems to suggest the
council didn't respond at all despite
them having uh an 8week statutory uh
duty to respond to that application for
change of use. Um, how did you assess
the fact that he put that in there into
his into his judgment?
>> I mean, I think it's very important and
I and we're really glad he did because I
mean, like you say, other than maybe the
handful of lawyers, certain other people
who were in court, I don't think anyone
was aware of that. And it's really
important how it seemed to be you know
these hotel owners they you know you
know running riot over the planning laws
and they don't really care and it's a
change of use. Um but now as we see yes
it is a change of use but in fact the
government was aware the hotel was aware
they tried to do it and the and the in
fact you know really ironically
unfortunately the council itself is
basically at fault here. Um and they're
the ones who are blaming the hotel and
so I think it's really important that
the court made this clear. Obviously,
you know, in October at the hearing,
then these are all details that will be,
but I think it's really important even
for sorry to interrupt you. We're going
to go outside the court of appeal where
uh Eping Forest District Council's
representatives speak and let's listen
>> into sharp national focus. The concern
and motivation of Eping Forest District
Council throughout has been the
well-being of our local residents.
Where we had clarity and resolution, we
now have doubt and confusion.
However, this is not the end of the
matter. While the Court of Appeal has
lifted the temporary injunction, the
case for the final junction is still to
be heard.
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.
Eping Forest has always given the Home
Office much calls for re reflection.
We understand government faces a
dilemma, but that should not be at the
expense of local communities.
Planning law may seem dull. It might
seem boring, but it goes to the heart of
the relationship between local
communities and good government.
It enshrines the rights of local people
to have a say within their own
communities, and it should not be set
aside lightly.
The government can still listen. It
needs to understand and take
responsibility for the events that have
taken place in Eping over the past six
weeks for the trauma and disruption
brought upon our community.
The battle is not over and we will
continue the fight. It is nothing less
than the people of Eping would expect
and deserve. Thank you very much.
Councelor, the court says that this
injunction encouraged this order.
Well, that was uh councelor Ken
Williamson from Eping Forest District
Council expressing uh his disappointment
at the decision by the Court of Appeal
today, but finishing by saying the
battle is not over. He says that they're
going to look again. Of course, they
will get to go to trial in October about
this uh planning change. Um he said that
planning law may seem dull and not
important, but it's important in this
case. Um let's bring SH um K back in um
our human rights lawyer who's who's with
us and I don't know if you heard
anything that Mr. Williams had said
there councelor Williams had said and sh
but um he made one point there towards
the end uh about planning law and how it
might not feel like it's the or sound
like it's the right uh avenue to take to
try and achieve this aim of of closing
the asylum hotels. Well, Justice Bean
kind of addressed that. He said that the
council said protests acted as a trigger
for this application uh for them to
grant for the injunction to be granted
and justice been said protests are not a
matter for planning control.
>> Yes. And another point just what we were
discussing before we went there. Um
interesting how he doesn't mention that
in fact that planning permission was
made um and not responded to. It's you
know being made out as if you know
suddenly the council has become aware of
it and now they're the ones raising the
planning permission point. Whereas now
it appears just from today we realize
that in fact the court had uh the hotel
had actually made a planning permission
application. Anyway I mean I think also
I mean like we've seen um from the media
particularly yesterday some politicians
others trying to sort of making human
rights really a competition saying you
know um looking considering the home
office um arguments in court that almost
it's like competition between asylum
seekers human rights and British
people's human rights. But I think it's
very important that all people stand
together against the government and
demand all of our human rights. So of
course the government has a duty under
human rights law and other legislation
to keep British people safe and also um
to um accommodate and house asylum
seekers decently and humanely. So it's
not really a competition and I really
don't understand why certain groups um
are keen to keep you know creating that
narrative.
>> Okay, Shab Khan, really good to get your
expertise today. Thank you very much for
joining us. Uh so our main news of uh
the hour here that's a temporary
injunction that would have blocked
asylum seekers from being housed at the
Bell Hotel in Eping has been overturned
by the Court of Appeal. The Home Office
and Sani Group are now able to be party
to proceedings as to whether or not
asylum seekers can be housed at the Bell
Hotel. That full trial due to be held in
October. Let's take a look at the
weather.
The ideal atmosphere,
whatever the altitude,
the weather sponsored by Kata Airways.
Now, there are two days left of summer,
apparently, and it's like to be one of
the hottest on record. It was at least.
However, we're seeing a rapid change to
uh autumn. This afternoon, the remnants
of heavy rain over East Anglia will
clear into the North Sea, leaving
sunshine and showers for all. Some of
the rain will be heavy and there's a
potential for thunder. Temperatures will
reach the high teens. It'll become drier
from the west and the southwest through
the evening, but showers will persist uh
in the north.
Breathtaking views with clear skies
ahead. Kata Airways sponsors the
Hello and good afternoon. It is 3:00.
This is Sky News today with Kamali
Melbourne. Your headlines.
In a win for the government, the Court
of Appeal overturns a ban on asylum
seekers being housed at the Bell Hotel.
Epic.
Israel's uh ramped up operations in Gaza
City as it recovers the body of Ilhan
Vice and another hostage who was held by
Hamas yet to be identified.
Children to be offered the chickenpox
vaccine on the NHS for the first time.
Sky News reveals the man dubbed
Britain's most hated boss is to leave
PNO.
Plus, the Man United head coach Ruben
Amarim admits he sometimes wants to quit
days after his team were humiliated by
Lee to Grimby Town.
We're going to begin this hour with
breaking news. And in the last half an
hour, the Home Office has won its appeal
against the closure of the Bell Hotel in
Eping. The court of appeal overturned a
high court injunction that would have
stopped 138 asylum seekers from being
housed there past the 12th of September.
The ruling will come as relief to the
government which have embraced for
further legal challenges from other
councils over the use of hotels in their
areas. Now, judges of the court of
appeal said if upheld the injunction
would have set a dangerous precedent.
The provision of accommodation for
asylum seekers pursuant to the home
secretary's statutory duty is a national
issue requiring a structured response.
As Lord Justice Bean speaking at the
Court of Appeal short time ago, well,
Eping Forest District Council, which had
been challenging the use of the hotel
for asylum seekers, said this earlier.
Right.
>> We are deeply disappointed by the
outcome of today's hearing. While Eping
Forest has brought the wider asylum
seeker debate into sharp national focus,
the concern and motivation of Eping
Forest District Council throughout has
been the well-being of our local
residents.
A few weeks from now, we will be back.
Well, the leader of the Conservatives
have responded. Kimmy Bay wrote in a
statement. Karma has shown that he puts
the rights of illegal immigrants above
the rights of British people who just
want to feel safe in their towns and
communities. This ruling is a setback,
but it's not the end. I say to
conservative councils seeking
going. That's Kem Bay not there. While
Nigel Faraj has also been onto social
media to comment. He wrote, "The
government has used the European
Convention of Human Rights against the
people of Eping. Illegal migrants have
more rights than the British people
under Star." Well, our chief political
correspondent, John Craig, is standing
by to give us more of the political
reaction to this judgment. But first,
let's go to Eping where our social
affairs correspondent Becky Johnson is
outside the Bell Hotel. Uh Becky,
afternoon to you. So, has there been any
reaction in the past few minutes after
that judgment was handed down in central
London?
>> Yeah, news sinking in here in Eping that
the asylum seekers who everybody thought
would be forced to leave here in two
weeks time uh now will be allowed to
stay. We know there's been a series of
protests over recent weeks. local
residents who don't want the asylum
seekers here. Jubilant last week at the
high court's decision and now we've seen
some of the anger and frustration now
that the court of appeal has overruled
it. In the last few minutes, the local
counselor has been down here clearly
very upset. Uh he told me that the
government should hang hang their heads
in shame. He said that people here had
taken the arguments made by the
government that the the rights and
interests of the asylum seekers were
more important to the government than
the rights and the feelings of local
residents here in Eping. And he said
there is a huge amount of concern and
anger. Remember the spark of the
protests here uh was the charging of of
one of the uh residents of this hotel,
an asylum seeker charged with sexual
assault uh of a local school girl. Now
that trial is underway and and there's
clearly a huge amount of anger. I should
say the asylum seeker denies those
charges, but um people here saying that
they don't feel that their children are
safe. And this local counselor said to
me that were anything to happen to any
further children uh in this area. He
said it would be on the government's
heads as a result of this decision. So a
huge amount of anger now being directed
at the home office because people really
thought that the asylum seekers would be
leaving. Now, as for advice to local
residents, this counselor said to me,
"Look, I I would call on people to stay
calm." But he sort of prefaced that by
saying he doesn't currently feel calm,
but he urged people to if they are
coming to protest to protest peacefully.
He does think people will continue to
come out. You can hear the the horns
honking of people driving past. A small
police presence here at the moment. you
know the the court of appeal judge
before delivering this said um this
judgment is not concerned about the
merits of government policy I mean that
that you know that as may be it was
essentially a planning dispute but
really this decision going right to the
very heart of the biggest political
issue in the UK facing the government
where asylum seekers should be housed
anger in communities that they're being
housed in hotels at taxpayers's expense
and this decision in the court of appeal
today unlikely um to to help abate any
of that anger indeed as we've seen here
um people very frustrated by what
they've heard from the court of appeal
this afternoon right Becky look we'll be
back with you of course uh later and
throughout the afternoon let's go to
Westminster now and bring in John Craig
and John as Becky was saying there look
the the judge tried to make it clear
Lord Justice Bean that this was not a
decision that he was making that had any
way a commentary entry on the government
policy of housing people within hotels,
but as Becky points out, probably can't
escape from that sense that this does
feel political. Of course, the
government will say they're going to
close asylum hotels. The only problem
for them will be that's not until 2029
>> and that's not quick enough according to
many Labour MPs and indeed some Labour
council leaders. Uh just on the
judgment, uh the judge, Lord Justice
Bean, was very critical of Mr. Justice
Steven. He used the word erroneous
twice, talked about uh um errors in the
judgment. Um but there has been a fast
and furious political reaction from the
government's opponents. Uh we are
waiting to hear from the home office who
are being a bit bit sluggish whereas uh
senior conservatives and reform UK uh
politicians have been very swift to
respond. Let's talk about the Kem Bedon
response because uh she has issued a
very uh a very uh detailed response and
the the gist of it is we fight on. Uh
she says uh her advice to uh uh Tory
councils who are considering following
Eping Forest's course of action keep
going in capital letters in her
statement. Uh now she also said um that
with the uh conservative councils, good
she said uh for residents and she said
we'll be writing to all conservative
counselors with further advice following
this judgment setting out our open offer
to work with councils and communities to
take action. Now Robert Genrich who was
the first politician to respond very
quickly um has responded responded in a
fairly similar vein. He's talked about
uh Iet Cooper using taxpayers money to
keep open a hotel housing illegal
immigrant migrants. Um he said the
government's lawyers argued
accommodating illegal migrants was in
the national interest. Um 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. Now Mr. Generic went on to say
uh his team of law for borders will
help protect communities along the lines
of what Kem Benox saying. And then
finally he said um this is Robert
Genrich the government should be
prioritizing Brits in need and deporting
every illegal migrant. Now, that is the
same as Nigel Farage was saying in his
big announcement earlier this week on
his migration policy. He said, "As the
last government should have done," said
Mr. Genrich. Well, he was the
immigration minister and I've argued for
years. Well, not sure he has. Um, as for
Mr. Farage's comment um he said uh that
um that um that um he talked about the
European Convention on Human Rights and
he said that um the judge he this is
Nigel Farage in a message on the X um
the government has used ECR against the
people of Eping the European Convention
of Human Rights. illegal migrants have
under star. The the judge, Lord Justice
Bean, did not refer to the uh European
Convention on Human Rights at all in his
judgment. Um but I mean it is true to
say that the government was arguing on
the rights of migrants in its submission
yesterday ahead of today's ruling. Um um
and um what uh what the government said
that was that um uh the uh the talked
about the hardship of of calls to asylum
seekers and so on. That was the lawyer
for Sanmani hotels. Um now uh yes there
was talk of human rights but the ECR
specifically was not mentioned in the
judgment today. Now, as for which
councils may now follow the advice of um
Kem Bayon, they're not all conservative.
One or two Labor ones as well. Now, the
ones we know about from our inquiries
here at Sky News who are considering uh
that course of action um uh there is uh
uh Roxbornne which is uh down in
Hertfordshire. They have been pretty
vocal supporting the action of Eping
Tamworth. Uh they are talking about the
leader of Tamworth Council told Sky News
uh our priority is ensuring the safety
of our community. East Lindsay in
Lincolnshire. Well, Lincolnshire of
course is these days a reform UK
stronghold with a reform UK mayor. The c
the county that is. And then Labor
council Whirl is one. And also um
significantly uh the leader of Wakefield
Council, a Labor Council uh that's uh
Denise Jeffrey told Sky News, "We want
the government to go further and
faster." Now that's in response to the
uh government's pledge to shut the
hotels by the end of the parliament.
Further and faster. And finally,
postcript, no comments. Um the uh judge,
Lord Justice Bean, uh leading light in
the society of labor lawyers. Um he is
also one of the was one of the founders
of matrix chambers uh the uh uh the uh
the so-called left-wing chambers founded
by among others Sheree Blair. Its
barristers also include Lord Hermer, the
prime minister's friend and current
attorney general. Whereas
Steven, the judge in the high court, was
a conservative candidate four times,
including the Hodge Hill bi-election
when Liam Bam was elected. Stood in
Hodgeill twice, Stbridge and Strangford
in Northern Ireland. No com no comment
at all from me on the political
affiliation of the judges.
>> No comment needed at all, John, but
context very important. Thank you for
that. John Craig, our chief political
correspondent. We'll have more of course
from John and from Hey,