The British government is attempting to overturn the recent High Court decision which forbids the Bell Hotel in Epping from housing asylum seekers. Under the current ruling, all migrants will need to relocate by September 12—but now the Home Office seeks to restore the previous arrangement.
Lawyers acting for Epping council argued that owners Sonami Hotels had broken planning laws when there was a ‘change of use’ from conventional hospitality to migrant accommodation. Now, lawyers acting for the Labour government are attempting to argue that the national interest overrides the interests of Epping, voiding the local council’s recent legal victory.
The government’s position was summarised as follows:
Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area, Home Office lawyers said in documents submitted to the Court of Appeal.
The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.
Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.
However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.
While the ECHR has come to be seen as a source of frustration for governments seeking to enforce border controls, the Home Office under Labour appears to be adopting the position that its policy on migrant hotels is an expression of human rights (despite its own promises to replace the venues with a less costly alternative).
Local community concerns focused on the Bell after allegations that one of the residents, Ethiopian national Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, was involved in a sexual assault upon a teenage girl.
Three judges have said they will rule on the matter of the government’s appeal and announce the decision on Friday August 29 at 2pm BST.
