The Home Office has lost their High Court bid to stop the injunction to force the closure of the Bell Hotel in Epping from housing migrants.
Epping Forest Council has won a huge legal victory and the Home Office said that the injunction will create “an impetus for further violent protests.”
The government’s and the Home Office’s asylum accommodation plans has now been turned upside down as the temporary High Court injunction now blocks asylum seekers from living there and will have so many days to leave the Bell Hotel.
Home Office solicitors have warned this injunction could now lead to “similar application made elsewhere that would then aggravate pressures on the asylum estate.”
They continued their argument that this could start the “new norm adopted by local authorities,” this clearly fell on deaf ears.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said, “This ruling is a moment of relief for the people of Epping.
“Residents should never have had to fight their own government just to feel safe in their own town.
“Local residents have every right to feel safe in their own streets and every right to object when their community is treated as a dumping ground.
“This whole episode is the direct result of Labour’s decision to throw open Britain’s borders and tear up the deterrents the Conservatives put in place.
“The Conservatives will remove all illegal arrivals immediately and put a proper deterrent in place so that towns like Epping are never put in this position again.”
Edward Brown KC representing the Home Office told the hearing on Tuesday, the Bell Hotel is “an appropriate site for accommodating asylum seekers notwithstanding the recent events.
He told the High Court the injunction will “substantially interfere” with the Home Office being able to undertake their statutory duty to house illegal migrants.
He added, The balance of convenience can never favour a course of conduct that creates a real risk of interfering with fundamental human rights.
Somani Hotels Limited, who own the Bell Hotel said they oppose the injunction bid.
Mr Justice Eyre said: “It is my assessment that the joinder of the (Home Secretary) is not necessary so the court can determine all matters in dispute in proceedings.
“Nor is there an issue which it is desirable to have the (Home Secretary) so the court can resolve it.”
He continued, “The consequences of the (Home Secretary) joining would be the loss of yet further court time. The impact of that is significant.”
Get real time update about this post category directly on your device, subscribe now.
