Today could become a pivotal moment in the debate over how Britain manages asylum seekers.
The Court of Appeal is expected to announce its decision on whether to bury an order calling for all immigrants to be removed from Epping’s Bell Hotel this afternoon.
While there is still a chance that the complex case could be postponed, the highly anticipated decision – whenever it is announced – could be a significant moment in this very different topic.
Here’s what you need to know.
What happened?
The ongoing anti-immigration sentiment intensified earlier this summer when one of the 138 asylum seekers held at Epping-Headush Kebatu was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. He is on trial and denies wrongdoing.
The incident sparked local anti-immigration protests outside the hotel, which were soon met with counter-demonstrations and significant police intervention.
National interest in the protests soon grew, with politicians such as Reform Britain’s Nigel Farage publicly pledging to remove those calling for the removal of asylum seekers.
Amidst all the furore, Epping Forest District Council declared that using the hotel to house asylum seekers had broken planning laws – and the High Court ruled in its favour.
Judge Eyre announced that all asylum seekers must be removed from the hotel by 4pm on September 12.
The Home Office and the Bell Hotel then challenged the decision in a day-long appeal hearing on Thursday.
The appeals court will announce its final decision on Friday afternoon.
Why does this matter?
Labour pledged to halt the use of sheltered hotels by the end of this parliament (in 2029 or before, depending on when the next election is called).
However, this week, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper considered it a legitimate appeal to stop such hotels from closing – and revealed why they are so important in the process.
Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on the government to resolve the issue, especially as the number of people crossing the canal has only increased this year.
The more than 28,000 migrants crossing the Channel so far this year are 50% more than last year – a record.
What was the Home Office case?
The government argued that hotels were a key part of Britain’s asylum system.
Its lawyers said closing the hotels quickly would risk breaching the Home Secretary’s statutory duty to the human rights of asylum seekers under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Edward Brown KC said the case “risks acting as an incentive for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around other asylum accommodation sites”.
Bell Hotel owner Somani Hotels also claimed the injunction could set a “precedent” in which other councils follow suit – even if it is not suitable for asylum seekers to go.
The Home Office also said the council had not identified any “significant planning concerns” at the hotel and said it would face “significant difficulties” if the hotel were to be accommodated without it.
What was the council’s business?
Epping Forest District Council sought the injunction after weeks of public protests, claiming the hotel – normally used for weddings and conferences – was in breach of planning regulations for being used for shelter accommodation.
The council also said there was no “compelling reason” for the appeal to go through.
How much do they rely on using shelter hotels?
The government relies heavily on the use of shelter hotels to house people while their claims are processed.
The Home Office even admitted in its written evidence to the court that the increase in small boat crossings this year had forced the government to use such hotels again.
The Bell Hotel housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021 and again from October 2022 to April 2024.
Labor reopened it to asylum seekers in April 2025.
The government has not outlined clear alternatives, but they could return to placing them in flats and houses, including properties rented from private landlords and social housing providers.
But that might not go over so well with voters in the midst of a housing crisis.
What would happen if they lost?
Dozens of local authorities, including Labour, have said they are prepared to launch similar legal proceedings, especially if the government fails to win an appeal.
But Labour says it will be a “chaotic and disorganized approach” to ending the use of shelter hotels, preferring instead to do so in a “managed way”.
It could also mean more protests, with the Home Office said to be a “significant factor” in the judge’s decision to impose the injunction on the Bell Hotel in the first place.
According to government lawyers, it could also encourage public disorder by those who seek to target asylum accommodation.
Government officials will have everything they managed to influence the Court of Appeal today, and at least for a short time longer, to extinguish the fires of anti-immigration sentiment …
