Closing asylum hotels must be “orderly” rather than through “piecemeal court decisions”, the Home Secretary has said as the Government plans to appeal against a court ruling blocking the use of an Epping hotel.
The Home Office will seek to appeal against the High Court’s refusal to allow it to intervene in the case, and to then further appeal against the temporary injunction.
On Friday, Yvette Cooper said ministers are working to close hotels housing asylum seekers “as swiftly as possible” as part of an “orderly” programme that avoids creating problems for other areas.
“That is the reason for the Home Office appeal in this case, to ensure that going forward, the closure of all hotels can be done in a properly managed way right across the country – without creating problems for other areas and local councils,” she said.
It comes as Somani Hotels, the owner of the Bell Hotel in Epping, also plans to appeal against the court order blocking the use of its hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.
On Tuesday, the High Court granted Epping Forest District Council the temporary injunction to remove asylum seekers from the hotel in Essex from September 12.
The local authority had sought legal action after the accommodation site had been at the centre of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker was charged with trying to kiss a 14-year-old girl, which he denies.
Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the “substantial impact” caused to the Home Secretary in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers.
They argued moving asylum seekers in the short period would cause “particular acute difficulties” for the Government.
But the bid was dismissed by Mr Justice Eyre, who said the department’s involvement was “not necessary”.
The judge also refused to give Somani Hotels Limited the green light to challenge his ruling granting the council a temporary injunction.
Barristers for the company had asked to be allowed to appeal against the ruling, citing its “wide-reaching ramifications” – including the impact it could have on the wider strategy and statutory duty for the Home Secretary to house asylum seekers.
But Mr Justice Eyre said that he was “not persuaded there is such a compelling reason”.
Since the injunction was granted, councils across the country controlled by Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK are investigating whether they could also pursue legal challenges against asylum hotels.
A wave of protests outside hotels used to temporarily house asylum seekers is expected in the coming days.
On Friday, immigration protesters waving Union flags faced off with anti-racism demonstrators in Portsmouth city centre.
Responding the Government’s legal bid, Epping Forest District Council’s finance chief Holly Whitbread said the move was “deeply disappointing”.
She said: “I hope that the Court of Appeal will make the right decision in upholding the decision of the High Court.
“It’s not a piecemeal court decision, it’s a decision on a planning point.”
The Conservative councillor added: “The Government keep churning out the line that they’re going to get all the hotels closed by the end of this Parliament. Our community can’t afford to wait another four years.”
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: “It is completely wrong that the Labour Government is taking legal action to keep open the Bell Hotel.
“The Government isn’t listening to the public or to the courts.
“Instead of trying to keep illegal immigrants in expensive hotels, the Conservatives would remove all illegal arrivals, put in place a real deterrent and ensure towns like Epping are never put in this position again.”
