‘It’s just not true!’ Top barrister rages at judge ‘lumping protesters together’ in controversial Epping hotel ruling

Local residents have been protesting against the use of the Bell Hotel for illegal migrants and will likely take to the streets again in the wake of the verdict.

Speaking on GB News, Mr Barrett said the decision to overturn a temporary injunction against the hotel was a poor one.

“I think it’s deeply flawed on its own terms. I think the good people of Epping will feel very aggrieved and I think the local council will feel very aggrieved”, he said.

“I think Mr Justice Ayre has a right to feel aggrieved by this dismissing of his reasoned 120-page judgment. They were very rude to him in their judgment. They didn’t let the Home Office join. In all the other preceding cases, the Home Office didn’t join, so it’s not normal for them to join.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Epping asylum seekers allowed to STAY in migrant hotel as court sparks fury from local residents
• Robert Jenrick leads outrage against court decision to allow asylum seekers to stay in Epping hotel
• SNAP POLL: Should Labour respect the Epping public's views and shut the asylum hotel?

“He had the hearing on a Friday and gave judgment, so the interim case is finished. Then the Home Office make an application make an office on the Monday to join. That’s clearly incompetent. He told them to trot on and yet he was criticised for that.

“There was a very rude error. Firstly they lumped all the protesters together. They lumped the Antifa protesters together with the concerned local mothers, that’s not fair.

“They said all protesters together are all bad. They said the judge made a mistake imposing the injunction because it incentivised protests.

“After the injunction was granted, they stopped protesting in Epping, so it’s just not true.”

Patrick Christys said Mr Barrett made an “interesting point” and cited his own experience visiting Epping on the day the injunction was granted.

He said the only people present were locals and the “protests had stopped”.

Mark White details 'bitter blow' for Epping locals as migrants stay put in hotel

Mr Barrett said: “Yes, this is logically irrational. The actions of Mr Justice Bean is going to incentivise protests. If he thinks he is going to shut down protests, that is not going to happen.

“They don’t seem to understand the actions of ordinary human beings. Obviously the people of Epping are going to be upset. I worry we have a self-selecting elite who don’t seem to understand that. Obviously they are going to protest.

“I think they will do so peacefully, because I have seen the good people of Epping.”

Three appeal judges overturned Mr Justice Eyre's order on Friday afternoon, which had required the Bell Hotel in Epping to stop accommodating asylum seekers.

The reversal means residents can remain at the property until a full High Court hearing scheduled for mid-October examines the planning dispute. Epping Forest District Council had secured the original injunction claiming the hotel operator, Somani Hotels, violated planning regulations by functioning as a hostel rather than traditional hotel accommodation.

Legal representatives for the Home Office and hotel owner challenged the council's stated reasons for seeking the injunction. Edward Brown KC, acting for the Home Office, argued that "Epping has effectively conceded before this court that this was, in truth, only ever about protest."

The council's barrister, Robin Green, acknowledged that despite years of alleged planning violations, authorities had considered the situation "unproblematic" until recently. This stance shifted when demonstrations erupted after a Bell Hotel resident faced sexual offence charges in July.

Brown KC maintained the interim injunction represented "simply the wrong tool" for addressing asylum accommodation protests.

Lord Justice Bean, delivering the judgment alongside Lady Justice Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, identified fundamental problems with the initial High Court decision. He stated that "the risk of injustice to residents by being dispersed by 12 September, when the trial of the claim is to take place only some six weeks later, seems to have had oddly little resonance with the judge."

The appeal judge characterised Mr Justice Eyre's evaluation as having a "seriously flawed" approach when weighing the balance of convenience. Bean LJ highlighted the impracticality of relocating residents merely weeks before a trial that could potentially determine they were entitled to remain at the property legally.

The demonstrations at the Bell Hotel have been identified as involving far-right extremist elements. Local concerns emerged regarding the hotel's location near educational facilities and a care home, with the council warning about escalating community tensions.

The planning enforcement approach taken by Epping Forest mirrors unsuccessful attempts by other local authorities. Councils in Ipswich, East Riding of Yorkshire, Fenland, Stoke-on-Trent and North Northamptonshire have pursued comparable legal challenges against hotels accommodating asylum seekers on planning grounds.

These authorities argued that operating as hostels rather than hotels constituted planning breaches, but courts have consistently rejected such applications in recent years.