The debate over how the United Kingdom houses asylum seekers reached a dramatic turning point on August 29, 2025, when the Court of Appeal overturned a temporary injunction that had blocked the government from accommodating asylum seekers at The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. This decision, closely watched by councils and activists nationwide, allows 138 asylum seekers to remain at the hotel, at least until a full High Court hearing scheduled for mid-October. The ruling has sparked intense reactions from local officials, national politicians, activists, and residents, highlighting the deep divisions and complexities at the heart of the UK’s asylum accommodation policies.
The legal saga began earlier in the year when Epping Forest District Council obtained a High Court injunction, arguing that the conversion of The Bell Hotel into asylum accommodation breached planning rules. The council’s move was triggered in part by escalating protests outside the hotel, which intensified after an asylum seeker residing there was arrested and charged with several offenses, including the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. The accused, Hadush Kebatu from Ethiopia, has denied the charges and is currently on trial. According to BBC reporting, these protests prompted the council’s legal team to seek the injunction, a point later scrutinized by the appeals court.
When the High Court initially ruled that the 138 asylum seekers must vacate the hotel by September 12, 2025, the government and the hotel’s owners swiftly appealed. Lord Justice Bean, delivering the Court of Appeal’s decision, did not mince words in his criticism of the earlier ruling. He labeled it “seriously flawed in principle,” emphasizing that the High Court judge, Mr Justice Eyre, had failed to consider the practical challenges of relocating such a large group of migrants. “The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system,” Lord Justice Bean stated, as reported by BBC News. He further warned against letting public protest influence judicial decisions, noting, “If an outbreak of protest enhances a case, this runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further protests—some of which may be disorderly—around asylum accommodation. There is a risk of encouraging further lawlessness.”
The government’s concern was not limited to the fate of The Bell Hotel alone. The Home Office reportedly feared that if Epping’s legal victory stood, it could set a precedent for other local councils to challenge the use of hotels for asylum seekers in their jurisdictions, potentially upending the already strained accommodations system. As of March 31, 2025, there were 103,684 asylum seekers being housed across the UK—an increase from the previous year—according to official figures cited in court. The Bell Hotel itself, which boasts 152 beds, had been operating at just 1% occupancy with paying guests in August 2022 before being repurposed as asylum accommodation. Becca Jones, the Home Office’s director of asylum support, described the hotel as a “lifeline” for the government’s efforts to manage mounting pressures.
The fallout from the court’s decision was immediate and palpable on the streets of Epping. Approximately 100 protesters gathered outside The Bell Hotel on the evening of the ruling, prompting a heavy police presence. According to Essex Police, three men were arrested that night—one on suspicion of violent disorder, another for allegedly assaulting a police officer, and a third for drink driving after a car was driven on the wrong side of the road toward a police cordon. All three remained in custody as of the following morning. These incidents were not isolated; police have made a total of 28 arrests related to disorder outside the hotel since July, with 16 people charged. The protests, which have drawn thousands of participants and counter-demonstrators, reflect the intensity of local and national feelings on immigration and asylum policy.
Politicians from across the spectrum weighed in on the ruling, often in starkly contrasting terms. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch responded critically, asserting that the decision “puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of the British people.” Local Conservative MP Neil Hudson called the judgment a “dreadful decision,” while Reform UK leader Nigel Farage claimed the government had used European human rights law “against the people of Epping” and suggested migrants had “more rights than the British people under Starmer.” However, a summary of the ruling clarified that while European human rights law was mentioned in the government’s legal submissions, it was not a central factor in the Court of Appeal’s decision.
On the other side of the debate, refugee advocates and some political leaders welcomed the ruling. Steve Smith, chief executive of the charity Care4Calais, said the judgment “made it clear that violent protest, and in many cases overt racism, is not a fast-track route for the far right to attack the rights of people seeking sanctuary in this country.” Liberal Democrat home affairs spokeswoman Lisa Smart told the BBC that the government should focus on “speeding up asylum processing to bring down the backlog and end hotel use once and for all.”
For the government, the ruling provides both relief and a renewed sense of urgency. Border Security and Asylum Minister Dame Angela Eagle stated that hotels “aren’t a sustainable solution” and reiterated the government’s commitment to ending their use for asylum accommodation by the end of the current Parliament. “This judgment assists us by allowing us to do that in a planned and orderly fashion,” she said. “We all want the same thing, which is to get out of asylum hotels.”
As the legal battle continues, with Epping Forest District Council considering an appeal to the Supreme Court and a full High Court hearing on a permanent injunction set for October, the situation at The Bell Hotel remains a focal point in the national conversation about asylum policy. The case has exposed the difficult balancing act faced by authorities: addressing local concerns about planning and public order, ensuring humane treatment for asylum seekers, and managing a system stretched to its limits. As Lord Justice Bean pointed out, the closure of one site only shifts the burden elsewhere, underscoring the need for systemic solutions rather than piecemeal legal victories.
While the immediate future of The Bell Hotel’s residents is secure, at least for now, the broader questions about how and where the UK should house those seeking sanctuary remain unresolved. With emotions running high and legal, political, and humanitarian pressures mounting, the coming months are likely to see further debate—and perhaps, more decisive action—on one of the country’s most contentious issues.
