The government has used a European court against its own people and “illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer”, Reform UK’s Nigel Farage said in the wake of the Court of Appeal ruling a controversial migrant hotel may stay open.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper won her appeal at a top London court on Friday afternoon, a panel of three judges harshly criticising the lower judge who had previously granted an injunction against the controversial Bell migrant hotel for having failed to consider the “desirability of preserving the status quo”.
This new ruling means the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex can continue to provide accommodation for illegal migrant males on behalf of the government despite never having acquired the proper paperwork for a change of planning (zoning) to reflect its change in use. After a series of arrests of residents in recent months, including cases of alleged sexual assault, the hotel became a flashpoint for protests which over the summer have grown and spread to many other towns and cities across the country.
Lord Justice Bean, reading the ruling reached with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb agreed with government lawyers that they should have the right to appeal and that the Home Office has a “constitutional role relating to public safety”. Lawyers for the local Epping government which had originally gained the injunction had argued that the rights of migrants to be provided for by the government did not overrule the locals, but this appears to have not fallen on fertile ground.
Strongly criticising the judge which had granted the injunction, the panel said, per The Daily Telegraph: “… we conclude the original judge made a number of errors of principle which undermined his decision… the judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that closure of one site means that capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system”.
The original ruling had been “seriously flawed in principle”, they said, and it had failed to consider “the desirability of preserving the status quo”. The consequences for a ruling on the government and what it wants to do also had to be considered, but weren’t, they said, adding that the ruling could have “incentivised” other protests, and other councils bringing cases against the government.
On the importance of the law protecting the government from challenges, they said: “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 there is a risk of encouraging lawlessness.”
The case has been called “political poison” for the government given they won an election last year on promises of closing migrant hotels, rather than fighting a bitter political rear-guard action to keep them open, and given the state of public opinion which has been polled to be strongly against the hotels.
Nevertheless, the government welcomed the ruling, although with qualifiers as immigration minister Dame Angela Eagle repeated Labour’s present promise to close migrant hotels, just in their own time. Eagle also blamed the Conservatives, who left power after 14 years in 2024 and who were the architects of the migrant hotel system, for handing over a mess.
Figures from the British right responded with dismay and outrage instantly as the ruling was made. Brexit pioneer and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage — who has spent the summer banging the drum on Britain’s crime problem and, latterly, the migrant crisis — decried the government putting the interests of new arrivals ahead of Britons.
Noting the centrality of the European Court of Human Rights, a Brussels-based body that critics say the country should have left at the same time as the European Union but didn’t, to the case Mr Farage said: “The government has used ECHR against the people of Epping. Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.”
Rupert Lowe, a migration hardliner who had a falling out with Farage last year and now sits as an independent in the Commons said the case had illustrated the situation in Britain where there is “a Government against its own people.”
The defacto leader of the Conservative Party, Robert Jenrick, who has been campaigning on migration issues hard over the past year in an apparent bid to bury the party’s track record of talking tough on migrants while forcing the gates open to record levels of arrivals, was less circumspect in his comments.
In a lengthy response he called the court’s decision “extremely disappointing” and recalled how the government’s lawyers had argued that putting migrants up in hotels is in the “national interest” and that the rights of migrants trump those of locals in this case.
This was wrong, he said, writing: “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… There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant.” He called on councils to keep challenging migrant hotels in their local areas and said he would provide legal assistance where necessary.
Epping Council themselves, who launched the bid to close the hotel after protests hit the town said “the battle is not over” and vowed to keep fighting. A full court case on the future of the Bell Hotel is expected in October. An Epping councillor said outside court on Friday: “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.”
Protest groups have vowed to intensify demonstrations outside the Bell hotel and more is expected this weekend.
This story is developing, more follows.
Read the full article here