DR DAVID MCGROGAN
The decision by the Court of Appeal on Friday to overturn the High Court’s earlier decision in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB) has generated considerable attention in the media and in online commentary. As usual, the coverage is poorly informed and misses the bigger picture. Let me try to rectify that as best I can.
First: what happened? Even if you have been living under a rock with only woodlice and centipedes for company for the past three months, you have likely heard about the protests going on outside the Bell Hotel in Epping. You will likely also have heard the recent news that the High Court – this is always stated rather dramatically – ‘ordered’ the hotel to close to asylum seekers, in the aforementioned case of Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited. It now seems that the Court of Appeal has ‘ordered’ it to stay open. What’s going on?
The most important point to emphasise, first, is that a mountain is being made out of a molehill in regard of the legal significance of these two decisions. (We will come to the political significance later on.) If I can summarise more accurately the judicial to-ing and fro-ing that has taken place, what essentially happened was that the High Court’s decision in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited granted to the Council a temporary injunction (lasting probably about two months). This would restrain a purported breach of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by Somani Hotels, by requiring the hotel to close for that period, until a full hearing could take place and a proper, final decision made on the legal niceties (due to take place in October). The alleged breach in question was, in effect, that Somani Hotels had failed to secure permission for a temporary change of use for the Bell Hotel from a hotel proper into asylum-seeker accommodation. And the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives the court the power to grant injunctions in such circumstance with a very wide discretion – that is, where the court considers it to be ‘appropriate’.
What the Court of Appeal has now held is that the judge in the High Court, Eyre J, was wrong to have granted that temporary injunction and that it had not been in fact ‘appropriate’ to do so. This was because, more or less, it would simply have been better to preserve the status quo until a proper, full and final decision could be made (i.e., in around two months’ time) on the planning law point. That would have been less disruptive not just to the people currently living in the hotel, but also to Government policy – the temporary injunction would have caused unnecessary chaos in the asylum system given the requirement to rehouse the residents of the Bell, and given the potential for other Councils to seek similar, temporary injunctions.
The Court of Appeal also took the time to give Eyre J a dressing down for having not permitted the Home Office to properly present its case in wanting the hotel to remain open, and for failing to take into account the danger that, in granting his temporary injunction, he was potentially incentivising public demonstrations outside asylum hotels. In his judgement, Eyre J had stated that the ongoing issue of the protests had to be weighed in the balance in favour of ordering the Bell Hotel to close until a full decision could be made. This, in the Court of Appeal’s view, would only encourage protesters outside other hotels across the land – and ought rather to have weighed in the balance against granting the temporary injunction.
What really happened, then, at least in respect of the legal issues at stake, was that the Court of Appeal exhibited that virtue – increasingly rare in the modern age – of judicial deference to politicians. Its decision was that the High Court’s grant of a temporary injunction had played fast and loose with issues which were properly within the remit of Government policy and fell to be determined by the Home Secretary rather than judges. It was unnecessarily disruptive in view of the fact that a full and detailed decision on the planning law issues was coming further down the line. And it had improperly balanced the issues at stake. All around, it had not been ‘appropriate’ and therefore the temporary injunction had not been lawfully granted.
That’s the legal issues. However, politically – and this is where we come to the bigger picture – the Court of Appeal’s decision is significant indeed.
The first reason for this is that it puts the Government squarely on the hook for its failed asylum policy and its weakness and pusillanimity in that regard. The judiciary, it seems likely, is not going to let politicians off the hook by ordering asylum hotels to close. These facilities are going to remain as visible testimonies to the utter failure of the political system to get to grips with the crisis at the borders. And this is as it should be: this is a political problem, caused by failures of politicians, and it requires political solutions. It is not a matter to be settled in courtrooms.
The second reason is that it means the illegal immigration issue is not going away any time soon. The Court of Appeal, it seems to me, is quite wrong in its assessment of the public mood. The chief reason why people are out in the streets protesting about asylum hotels is because they are (justifiably) angry. They want to see the entire issue of illegal immigration properly confronted and solved, and they want to see that ‘the system’ as such – politicians, judiciary, police, UK Border Force, etc. – is working to the utmost to do this. If the Bell Hotel’s temporary closure had gone ahead it would at least have felt like a step in the right direction, and this may have caused public anger to subside somewhat. In this sense, the idea that it would have incentivised further protest is quite wrong. If anything, with the hotels remaining open, we are now due for yet more protest, yet more anger, and yet more public resentment over this issue. In the long-run this makes a political resolution, in the form of a change of government, much more likely. But in the short-run it will make for much more disruption and protest – and, sadly, an increased possibility of genuine violence – rather than less.
Dr David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
This article (The Court of Appeal’s Decision to Keep Epping’s Migrant Hotel Open Has Made Civil Disorder More Likely, Not Less) was created and published by The Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Dr David McGrogan
See Related Article Below
Epping hotel judge ‘reported to conduct office’ over bias allegations
Barrister claims Lord Justice Bean has links to Left-wing causes that ‘advocate’ for migrants to stay
Lord Justice Bean, pictured, and two other Court of Appeal judges ruled that an injunction banning the Bell Hotel from housing asylum seekers should be overturned Credit: David Barrett/Avalon
The judge who ruled that asylum seekers can remain in a hotel in Epping has been reported to the conduct authority for alleged “bias” over links to Left-wing causes and organisations.
On Friday, Lord Justice Bean and two other Court of Appeal judges ruled that an injunction banning the Bell Hotel from housing asylum seekers should be overturned.
The ruling was a legal victory for the Home Office and has prevented the Government’s asylum policy from being plunged into chaos.
Steven Barrett, a prominent barrister, on Thursday said he submitted a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office arguing that Lord Justice Bean “should not have heard the Bell Hotel appeal” because of apparent conflicts of interest.
Those included his status as a founding member of Matrix Chambers which, Mr Barrett claims, is “firmly associated with advocacy in favour of allowing migrants to stay”.
Other members of Matrix Chambers include Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Philippe Sands KC, the lawyer acting for Mauritius in its case against Britain for sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Both men are human rights lawyers and long-time friends of Sir Keir Starmer.
Cherie Blair KC, the wife of Tony Blair, former Labour prime minister, is another prominent member, Mr Barrett noted.
‘Labour member for 28 years’
Barristers at Matrix Chambers practice independently and do not necessarily share the views of the organisation or one another.
Mr Barrett highlighted that Lord Justice Bean had been a Labour Party member for 28 years, had formerly served as deputy chairman of the Society for Labour Lawyers, and is a former chair of the Fabian Society, a socialist think tank “which advocates in favour of migrants”.
The barrister alleged that in presiding over the case, “Lord Justice Bean erred, in failing to properly consider, or if not fail to consider, fail to properly apply, the test of ‘apparent bias’”.
Mr Barrett cited a definition of apparent bias established in a case involving Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, which holds that it can apply if a judge’s “conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial, for example because of his friendship with a party”.
Mr Barrett said: “In my opinion, Lord Justice Bean has erred in agreeing to hear such an important case, when it involves his friends in Labour.”
Lord Justice Bean was approached via the Judicial Office for comment.
Residents of the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, celebrated on Friday after the Court of Appeal overturned an injunction that would have stopped 138 asylum seekers from living there.
Several of the migrants “thanked” Keir Starmer after the controversial ruling allowed them to remain at the hotel.
The Telegraph: continue reading
Featured image: Getty Images
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply