Asylum Seekers Can Continue Being Housed in Bell Hotel, Judge Rules – As He Denies High Crime Rate Among Asylum Seekers
The Bell Hotel in Epping can continue to house asylum seekers, a judge ruled today, as he said the change of use from a hotel was “not flagrant” and denied there is evidence of a high crime rate among asylum seekers. The Mail has more.
The ruling follows months of anti-immigration protests at the Essex hotel, sparked by the sexual assault of a 14 year-old girl by one of its residents.
Ethiopian Hadush Kebatu, 41, was found guilty and jailed for multiple counts of sexual assault before being mistakenly released, re-arrested and finally deported.
Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) took legal action against the hotel’s owner, Somani Hotels, claiming that housing asylum seekers there breaches planning rules.
Its lawyers said the housing of asylum seekers is a “material change of use” and has caused “increasingly regular protests”.
The Home Office intervened in the legal case, telling the court the council’s bid was “misconceived”.
Mr Justice Mould dismissed the claim today and said in a judgment that it is “not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction”.
The Conservatives said a court ruling that asylum seekers can continue to be housed in the Bell Hotel in Essex was a “slap in the face to the people of Epping”.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “This is a dark day for local democracy and a slap in the face to the people of Epping.
“A Labour Government has once again put the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British citizens.
“The people of Epping have been silenced in their own town. Their council fought for them, their voices were ignored.”
Referring to the Home Office’s intervention in the case, he said: “Labour’s lawyers fought tooth and nail to keep this hotel open.”
EFDC was granted a temporary injunction earlier this year following protests outside the hotel, which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers being housed there beyond September 12th.
But this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in August, which found the decision to be “seriously flawed in principle”.
EFDC then sought a permanent injunction through a three-day hearing last month.
Mr Justice Mould said: “I give due respect to the claimant’s judgement that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers constitutes a material change in the use of those premises, which requires planning permission.
“Nevertheless, I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control.
“The breach is far from being flagrant. Conventional methods of enforcement have not been taken.
“Taking a broad view, the degree of planning and environmental harm resulting from the current use of the Bell is limited.
“The continuing need for hotels as an important element of the supply of contingency accommodation to house asylum seekers in order to enable the Home Secretary to discharge her statutory responsibilities is a significant counterbalancing factor.”
The judge said the council’s desire to “find a swift resolution” to public disorder and community tensions after protests began in July was “understandable” but “it did not follow” that an injunction was appropriate.
He continued: “Public opposition to the development of land, even if that opposition manifests itself in street protests, is not in itself evidence of planning of environmental harm generated by the development to which there is such strong objection.
“The police have a panoply of powers to manage and regulate street protests and to enforce public order.”
Mr Justice Mould said Epping Forest District Council had not called evidence to support an argument over the propensity of asylum seekers to commit crimes or take part in anti-social behaviour.
He continued: “In my judgement, in order to begin to consider whether there is any force or substance in that contention, I should need to see an evidence-based and clear and statistically sound analysis of the relative incidence of criminal and anti-social behaviour amongst asylum seekers, as a defined cohort of persons, in comparison to a properly defined cohort of the settled population.
“There is no such evidence before the court.
“The fact that persons accommodated in asylum accommodation pursuant to sections 95 and 98 of the 1999 Act from time to time commit criminal offences or behave antisocially provides no reliable basis for asserting any particular propensity of asylum seekers to engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour.
“Persons who are members of the settled population also commit crimes and behave antisocially from time to time.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
And thus the resentment against the governing elite will grow and the feeling that the judiciary is biased against the population will further increase.
I think it is safe to assume this judge doesn’t live in epping and his granddaughters’ school is not near a migrant hotel.
That’s the intention. They WANT civil unrest so they can justify Authoritarian Governance.
If the high rate of crime among illegal immigrants, and sexual and violent crime especially, was a part of the reasoning I wonder why the barristers for EFDC did not produce the data to the Court.
As I understand the issue, EFDC must now go through the long winded process of enforcing the planning rules. That is nopt siomething the Council has always been prepared to do in the past when planning breaches have taken place.
If they don’t seek to enforce I assume itr will be OK for the rest of us to ignore planning rules, or is it a case of the convenience of the Labour Government over rides the general law. Two tier, in other words.
The judge seems to have overlooked the one truth, they are all in fact criminals having broken into the country in the first place, hence every single one of them is a Criminal
At a guess his view is that as they have not been charged, tried and convicted they’re ‘not guilty’.
Well the first appeal was presided over by a judge who was formerly chairperson of the Fabian Society, so perhaps any sense of balance was ruled out long ago. Thankfully things have been fairly quiet at the Bell recently – though the imposition of a 20mph zone seems unwarranted.
Or in other words, just as many crooks in the local population, according to the Judge. I learnt about this judgement via the World at One programme, and what was said by someone was that if it had gone the other way, it would have opened the door to many other Councils. No doubt that was a heavy weight to balance out.
Oh dear, this is not going to end well I fear.
No, it’s not likely to end well.
Almost each day something happens that increases the feeling of distrust and resentment in the population.
If the governing elite had listened, if they had made changes, if they had addressed the concerns of people, many problems could have been solved.
Instead they told us we were stupid, despicable racist oiks and carried on.
At some point the resentment will boil over and it’s not going to be pretty.
All part of The Plan.
The “boil over” is exactly what Kneel and co are pushing for. All deliberate.
Off-T:
https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/payments-in-medicine-part-3
A post from Carl Heneghan on TTE, regarding a 2005 House of Commons paper investigating the malign influence of Pharma on the UK system. Of course nothing was actually done with the information.
I think the so-called counterargument of the judge misses the point. “We don’t want the home office to house criminals ‘in the community’ in Epping” is perfectly valid concern, regardless of some residents of Epping not sent there by the home office also being criminals. Asylum seekers housed in a hotel in Epping committing crimes place an additional crime burden on the people of Epping and there’s no reason why they should just accept that.
From Matt Goodwin, the evidence the truth-twisting beak conveniently glosses over as “no such evidence before the court”:
“Migrant crime wave the state does its best to conceal”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/bombshell-stats-the-state-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
I am in receipt of a formal email from my local Council which refuses to enforce an Appeal Decision from the Planning Inspectorate. The email states that it is for the Council, not the PINS to decide how to enact a Council enforcement notice. This means that a Council cannot in theory ever lose an Appeal to the PINS. If this is truly correct, EFDC can simply issue an enforcement notice and act on it, since they can ignore any future Appeal Decision. Of course, I do not believe it is correct, but Councils are actually accountable to nobody and we just have to put up with it.
PINS?
Planning Inspectorate
Bless her, even this young girl manages to articulate her feelings about not feeling safe walking around. Kids should be carefree not going around feeling unsafe, but I suspect she’s picked up on the concern and anxiety of the parents. They’re not daft. But if I had a load of migrants dumped in my neighbourhood I’d be equally as concerned;
”The pub The Cat & the Fiddle is near two asylum hotels in West Drayton at Heathrow Airport. It is less than 3 miles from where Wayne Broadhurst was murdered in Hillingdon. Afghan migrant Safi Dawood, 22, is charged.
A brave young schoolgirl spoke out about the danger of migrants & at school was ostracised, called far-right & labelled a “racist” by teachers & pupils.
She rightly just wants “to walk down the street like her mum and dad used to without worry.”
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1987881613150101921
Isn’t this the inevitable outcome? Very concerning indeed. People are right to be anxious, especially so if they’re anywhere near migrant digs;
”Based on surnames 80% of men convicted of sex crimes in Birmingham had foreign names. 70% in Bradford. The man quoting the stats is Marcus @majohnstone
a criminal defence solicitor.
He concludes there has been an increase in sexual offences by those with a “foreign background”.
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1988214780931514564
Question by a Reform MP to the relevant Minister “Can the Minister confirm that data is held by the Home Office or Justice Department which confirms a statement by a judge who denied there is evidence of a high crime rate among asylum seekers. And will the Minister undertake to publish that evidence.
Can you see how much your gov’ts listens to your concerns? Like not at all. Don’t you wonder why. Are you living in a dictatorship? Sort of looks that way.