The rights of asylum seekers trump the people of Epping and their safety concerns, Home Office lawyers have told the Court of Appeal as they attempt to overturn the closure of the migrant hotel. The Telegraph has more.
Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.
The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.
In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.
“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.”
On Thursday, lawyers also argued that arrests of asylum seekers were not a reason to close migrant hotels.
Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that housing asylum seekers was “in the national interest”.
The hotel became the focus for anti-immigration protests after the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old schoolgirl by an Ethiopian asylum seeker living there.
At court on Wednesday, it was heard Hadush Kebatu, 41, told the teenager that she would be a “good wife” and that he wanted her to go back with him to the hotel to “have babies then… go to Kenya”.
The alleged incidents provoked protests and counter-protests outside the Bell Hotel. Similar protests have been held outside hotels across the country housing asylum seekers.
Mr Kebatu denies two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence.
The Government’s lawyers have also told the Court:
- The application for an interim injunction was “triggered by protests” and not genuine concerns about planning.
- There is no evidence of increased crime rate where migrants are housed.
- Making the injunction permanent would set a “dangerous precedent” for other councils to potentially copy.
- The “hardship” caused to the 138 male asylum seekers in the hotel has not been considered.
- The perceived risk of housing migrants in Epping is “fuelled by dis-information on social media”.
- Protests outside the hotel are being driven by a “range of grievances” including an “animosity towards asylum seekers”.
- Accommodating asylum seekers is in the national interest.
Follow the Telegraph‘s live coverage here.
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.