A British court ruled on Friday that the government could continue to house asylum seekers in a hotel in Epping, northeast of London, reversing a previous decision in a case that has come to symbolize the polarizing debate over immigration in Britain.
While the ruling will be welcomed by the Labour government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, it will not solve the long-term dilemma over how to accommodate asylum seekers waiting for decisions on their cases, the number of which stood at almost 91,000 in June.
And the judgment will likely reignite tensions over asylum hotels, including in Epping — where the organizers of recent demonstrations had claimed the original court ruling as a victory.
Under British law, the government must provide accommodation for asylum applicants who would otherwise be homeless and who are mostly barred from working. The backlog of asylum claims rose sharply before Labour won power in last year’s election, because small-boat crossings of the English Channel had risen and decision making had slowed under the previous Conservative government.
Hotels, which were previously only used for asylum seekers in emergencies, were increasingly employed as “contingency accommodation” during the Covid-19 pandemic. They now house 32,000 asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
This month, a High Court judge granted a temporary injunction ordering that asylum seekers be moved out of the Epping hotel, The Bell, which is one of more than 200 hotels currently in use. The Bell had become the subject of sometimes violent protests after an asylum seeker staying there was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
Delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment on Friday, Lord Justice Sir David Bean said it was “worrying” that the judge who granted the injunction had done so partly because of the protests.
If that ruling was allowed to stand, he said, it could create an “incentive for further protests” and “further lawlessness” outside asylum hotels. According to the police, 25 people were arrested at protests in Epping in July and early August, and 16 were charged.
The judge said that while local residents’ fear of crime was “relevant,” it was “clearly outweighed” by other factors, including the government’s legal duty to house asylum seekers, and that there was no urgency to empty The Bell before a full legal challenge over its use can take place in October.
The hotel became the target of protests after the sexual assault charges against one of the residents. Prosecutors told a trial this week that the resident, an Ethiopian asylum seeker called Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, had tried to kiss the 14-year-old girl in the town center on July 7, and had asked her to come back to the hotel to have sex with him after she and her friends had offered him a slice of pizza.
After seeing the same girl the following day, Mr. Kebatu, 38, was accused of putting his hand on her leg, before he was confronted and reported to the police by a woman who said he had touched her leg and called her “pretty” a short time before.
Mr. Kebatu denied all the charges, and his trial is expected to conclude next week.
After weeks of protests outside the hotel, the Epping Forest District council took legal action earlier this month to try to force the removal of asylum seekers from the hotel, arguing that its use for asylum accommodation violated planning laws.
A full High Court hearing on the case will take place in October. On Aug. 19, Epping council was granted the interim injunction, which required asylum seekers to be moved by Sept. 12.
After that ruling, other local councils announced that they would also take legal action to close asylum hotels. The Reform U.K. party, which favors deporting all undocumented migrants, and the Conservative Party urged councils under their control to follow the example set by the council in Epping.
At the Court of Appeal this week, lawyers for the government said that the injunction risked setting a “dangerous precedent” amid increasing pressure on asylum accommodation.
Edward Brown, a lawyer representing the Home Office, which is responsible for immigration, said the government was using hotels because of a shortage of other housing. He noted that the government had pledged to end their use by the next general election, which must take place by August 2029, and said that any closures should not happen in a “chaotic and disorderly” way.
The Court of Appeal judge said the ruling on Friday only related to whether there had been legal errors in the original injunction, adding: “This appeal hearing is not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, in hotels or otherwise.”
In a statement, Epping council said it was “deeply disappointed” but said that it would “continue the fight” at the October High Court hearing over whether the hotel had breached planning laws. “We understand government faces a dilemma, but that should not be at the expense of local communities,” it added.
The post U.K. Court Overturns Ruling on Hotel at Center of Asylum Seeker Debate appeared first on New York Times.
