The Green Party has also reacted to today’s Court of Appeal ruling, saying the case is a “distraction from the need to sort out the terrible legacy of 14 years of Conservative government misrule and Labour’s failure to come up with workable, humanesolutions”.

Green MP Ellie Chowns says it is “inhumane, as well as costly to UK tax payers, for people seeking asylumto have to wait years for a decision and be housed in temporary accommodationlike hostels and hotels”.

Chowns says people have the right to claim asylum, and that the public have the right to “expect the government to run a fast and fair process to assess applications”.

“The UK government quite rightly created safe and managedroutes for people fleeing Ukraine. They need to offer the same to othersseeking safety from similarly dangerous situations,” she says, adding that it can be done “if the political will and leadership is there”.

“People seeking asylum and protection must be allowed to workwhile their application is being decided. That’s the way to get them out of hotelsand able to look after themselves and contributing to local communities,” she adds.

Unpacking claims about role of European Convention of Human Rights in this casepublished at 16:25 British Summer Time

Dominic Casciani
Home and Legal Correspondent

There are claims that the home secretary won this case thanks to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This claim needs some unpacking.

The Home Secretary is under a duty – imposed by our Parliament in 1999 – to prevent asylum seekers from becoming destitute – meaning sleeping rough on our streets. This was passed to ensure that ministers don’t ignore the challenges of global movements of people which began to accelerate towards the end of the century.

The 1999 law is closely linked to the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment in the European Convention of Human Rights – a right open to all.

Down the years successive Parliaments have adopted ideas from universal human rights – be it the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the European Convention, and written them into our domestic law.

Sometimes those concepts are already part of our heritage – the ECHR ban on torture, for example, was written 300 years after England outlawed it.

So pulling out of the ECHR or whatever other treaty does not necessarily remove basic human protections. Many of them are deeply embedded in our legal and political choices as a nation.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has responded to the court’s ruling, accusing the government of using the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) “against the people of Epping”.

“Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer,” he says in a post on X in response to the ruling.

The director of the charity Migrant Voice says she is “relieved” following the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

“The alternative was setting a dangerous precedent which would embolden the far right to further target those seeking safety,” Nazek Ramadan tells the BBC.

She points out that there are still “many serious issues with hotels for people seeking asylum”, with many often lacking “the most basic of necessities”.

“Until this government starts investing in community schemes to provide better support though, hotels are at least better than the leaving people in camps or making them homeless,” she adds.

In reaction to today’s Court of Appeal ruling, the Liberal Democrats say the result of the appeal “doesn’t change the fact that the use of asylum hotels at a massive cost to the taxpayer is a shameful legacy of the Conservatives”.

Lib Dem home affairs spokeswoman, Lisa Smart, tells the BBC their party “long-called to end their (asylum hotel) use”, and the asylum backlog has been “too large for far too long”.

She adds that the Labour government needs to “urgently get a grip on this crisis – stopping dangerous Channel crossing and speeding up asylum processing to bring down the backlog and end hotel use once and for all”.

Conservative Councillor Ken Williamson, who represents the Buckhurst Hill West ward, says he is “deeply disappointed” by the outcome of today’s hearing.

He adds that the wellbeing of local Epping residents was the priority for the council.

Williamson says he understands the government faces a dilemma, but it should not be at the expense of local communities.

Planning law “enshrines” the rights of local people to have a say in their community, Williamson adds, saying that the “battle is not over”.

“We will continue the fight,” Williamson adds before walking away and refusing to answer questions from reporters.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling made last week.

That earlier ruling had said the Bell Hotel must be cleared of asylum seekers by 16:00 BST on 12 September.

Today’s decision means they can stay.

But don’t forget – this isn’t the end of the matter.

Epping Forest District Council’s claims that the hotel is operating unlawfully – denied by its owners – will be heard at a full hearing listed for mid-October.

So in about seven weeks expect to hear more developments as the matter is addressed in court once more.

The government has responded to the Court of Appeal ruling, repeating its pledge to stop using hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament.

In a statement, Border Security and Asylum Minister Dame Angela Eagle says the Home Office launched its appeal so hotels like the Bell, in Epping, could be “exited in a controlled and orderly way”.

She says this “avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day”.

Labour inherited a “broken system” from the Tories, she adds, and says the number of hotels used for asylum seekers has “almost halved” since its peak in 2023.

The government is also “working hard to relieve pressure on the system” and “striking back at criminal people smuggling gangs at every stage,” she adds.

She adds that Labour has given law enforcement “counter-terror style powers” to tackle people-smuggling, and is starting to detain people who arrive in small boats under its “groundbreaking deal” with France.

We’ve just seen a statement from the Leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch after the Home Office won their case.

In a statement on X, Badenoch calls the ruling “a setback”.

She adds: “The fact remains that asylum hotels are a choice.”

As a reminder, the government has to set out its plan to stop use of asylum hotels by 2029.

She goes on to say that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of the British people”.

Badenoch asserts that the Tories will keep working with councils and communities, including Epping, following the judgement.

We’re now hearing from Lisa Foster of Richard Buxton Solicitors, who represent Somani Hotels. She says they are “pleased” with the courts ruling that asylum seekers can stay at the Bell Hotel.

She adds that Somani Hotels, who own the Bell Hotel, “realise that they have been caught in the middle of a much wider debate on the treatment of asylum seekers”.

Somani Hotels’ lawyers ask that members of the public “understand that the Bell Hotel has simply been providing a contracted service that the government requires”.

“We now ask that all associated with the Bell Hotel are left alone to continue to support the government’s asylum plans as best they can,” Foster says.

She concludes: “We are grateful to the Court of Appeal for appreciating the urgency of the matter from everyone’s point of view and dealing with the matter so swiftly. We have no further comment and will not be commenting on the matter again.”

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

It’s been less than an hour since I heard the knock on the courtroom door signalling three Court of Appeal judges were about to enter.

Within about half an hour, Lord Justice Bean finished his address, and the courtroom started emptying.

Most of the room have now filed out – with the exception of a few journalists such as myself still typing up our notes.

Stay with us as we bring you reaction to the decision.

Government’s fears eased, but there’s still a danger for ministerspublished at 14:45 British Summer Time

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

That went about as well for the government as it could have done.

Their fears that – had the injunction been upheld – other councils would have launched similar legal challenges will be eased.

But there is still a danger for ministers here. In order to uphold their legal duty to protect asylum seekers, they have had to argue in favour of using hotels to house them.

Robert Jenrick, the Conservative’s shadow justice secretary has already posted: “Starmer’s government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our country.”

For a government already under pressure over small boats crossing the Channel, that is a difficult position to be in.

An important win for the Home Officepublished at 14:37 British Summer Time

Dominic Casciani
Reporting from court

On a strictly legal level this is a really important win for the Home Office – and to all intents and purposes it resets the situation.

The Court of Appeal seriously criticised the judge who issued the order to clear the hotel, saying that while he had lawfully taken into account the fear of crime in Epping, he had failed to take into account that the order could encourage protest and was not necessary given that the council’s full claim against the hotel would be heard within weeks.

The lifting of the injunction acknowledges that ministers have a legal duty, set by Parliament, to keep asylum seekers off the streets.

In practical terms, it gives them the space to plan what they pledge is going to be a progressive close-down of the hotel programme before the next general election.

But this is all at a political cost.

The prevailing narrative this summer has been against the government and while it is trying to emphasise the bigger picture – and has won that argument here in court – for some this will look like a national Goliath thumping a local David to get its way.

That is not a good look – but it may be one ministers have to uncomfortably wear for now.

Jemma Crew
Reporting from court

Appeal court judges overturn the High Court injunctionordering asylum seekers to be cleared from the Essex hotel.

Lawyers for the Home Office and the Bell Hotel in Epping hadbrought a challenge over a previous ruling stopping migrants from living at thevenue.

The court says the Epping residents fear of crime wasproperly taken into account. It is outweighed by the undesirability ofincentivising protests and the desirability of maintaining the status quo,before the case is fully heard in October.

• We’ll have analysis from our legal correspondent Dominic Casciani in the next few moments

Jemma Crew & Dominic Casciani
Reporting from court

Lord Justice Bean says the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper can intervene in the case.

He says the earlier High Court judge failed to take into account the home secretary’s right to take part.

In particular he failed to hear arguments about the challenge of relocating a significant number of asylum seekers.

“The judge denied himself the opportunity to consider the wider public interest factors,” he says.

Jemma Crew & Dominic Casciani
Reporting from court

Lord Justice Bean says the Court of Appeal takes as its starting point that an injunction is discretionary.

It is our role to interfere in that decision only if we identify an error in law, a gap in logic or a failure to take into account relevant factors, he says.

He adds the High Court judge who issued the injunction made a number of errors that “undermine his decision”.

Jemma Crew & Dominic Casciani
Reporting from court

Lord Justice Bean grants the home secretary’s application for permission to appeal, and grants the home secretary intervenor status.

Lord Justice Bean says: “The home secretary has clear statutory duties to asylum seekers under 1999 legislation. These include a duty to provide support to them and prevent destitution.

“Given these duties in addition to her constitutional role relating to public safety the Home Secretary is plainly directly affected.”

Jemma Crew & Dominic Casciani
Reporting from court

More background now on the history of the hotel’s use for accommodating asylum seekers.

Somani Hotels applied for planning permission during the second period. But, Lord Justice Bean said the council did not deal with its application for “over a year”.

The asylum seekers then moved out – and Somani Hotels withdrew its application.

Somani Hotels then entered into a new contract, and in April 2025 it re-opened to provide accommodation. The council said it would have to seek permission.

Somani Hotels, on advice from the Home Office, said it would not be submitting an application for a temporary change of use. The council did not reply.

On 9 August, the council without notice issued injunction proceedings against Somani Hotels.

Since 8 July there has been largely continuous protests outside the hotel, following an allegation of sexual assault by one of its residents.

Jemma Crew & Dominic Casciani
Reporting from court

The judge is now setting out background facts. He says the Bell Hotel is situated on the outskirts of the centre of Epping and as we reported earlier, run by Somani Hotels.

It currently accommodates approximately 138 asylum seekers – the provision of this accommodation is under contract between Somani Hotels and CTM, a company contracted by the Home Office.

It is the third time the hotel has been used to accommodate asylum seekers. It was first used between May 2020 and March 2021, and then October 2022 to April 2024.

At no time during these earlier periods did the council take steps to restrain Somani from providing accommodation.

Jemma Crew & Dominic Casciani
Reporting from court

Lord Justice Bean says the temporary injunction, granted by the High Court, was to last for only a relatively brief period until the trial of the council’s claim before a judge.

This is listed for a date in mid-October.

He adds this case is not about the merits of the government’s policy of where to house asylum seekers.