The government has taken the first step in appealing a court’s decision that asylum seekers cannot be housed in an Essex hotel.

The Home Office is seeking permission to intervene in the case, which, if granted, will allow it to appeal the interim judgment handed down last week.

Epping Forest District Council sought an interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at The Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited.

The interim injunction demanded the hotel be cleared of its occupants within 14 days.

In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary block, but extended the time limit by which it must stop housing asylum seekers to 12 September.

Somani Hotels will now appeal against the court order blocking the use of the hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, the company’s solicitors have said.

Meanwhile, security minister Dan Jarvis said on Friday that closing hotels housing asylum seekers must be done “in a managed and ordered way” as he unveiled government plans to challenge the High Court’s decision.

He told broadcasters: “This government will close all asylum hotels and we will clear up the mess that we inherited from the previous government.

“We’ve made a commitment that we will close all of the asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, but we need to do that in a managed and ordered way.

“And that’s why we’ll appeal this decision.”

An analysis by Sky News has found 18 other councils are also actively pursuing or considering similar legal challenges to block asylum hotels – including Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral.

Disquiet with the use of asylum hotels is at a high after the latest statistics showed there were more than 32,000 asylum seekers currently staying in hotels, marking a rise of 8% during Labour’s first year in office.

The number of small boat crossings in the Channel is also up 38% on the previous 12 months.

Following the Epping case, a wave of protests is expected outside of asylum hotels across the country in the coming days.

Stand Up To Racism is preparing to hold counter-protests outside the asylum hotels on Friday, including in Bournemouth, Cardiff and Leeds, with further demonstrations expected on Saturday.

In its case, Epping Forest District Council argued that the owners of the Bell Hotel did not have planning permission to use the premises to accommodate asylum seekers.

It argued that the injunction was needed amid “unprecedented levels of protest and disruption” in connection with the accommodation.

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said the people of Epping who protested and its council have “led the way”, writing in The Telegraph that “our country’s patience has snapped”.

His Conservative colleague Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said on Thursday that people have “every right” to protest over asylum hotels in their areas.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, has urged councils to explore legal challenges – with Conservative-run Broxbourne Council announcing that it would do so.

Read more:
A council-by-council breakdown of asylum seekers in hotels
Who says what on asylum hotels?
Labour smell dirty tricks over asylum hotel court ruling

Hillingdon Council, which is also controlled by the Tories, also said it was exploring its options.

Meanwhile, former Reform chairman Zia Yusuf told Sky News three councils run by his party had the power to mount legal challenges.

He said West Northamptonshire, which Reform seized control of in May’s local elections, would be doing so.

In a further headache for Sir Keir Starmer, Labour-controlled councils are also considering legal action, including Wirral and Tamworth.

Paula Basnett, the Labour leader of Wirral council, said: “We are actively considering all options available to us to ensure that any use of hotels or other premises in Wirral is lawful and does not ride roughshod over planning regulations or the wishes of our communities.”

Carol Dean, the Labour leader of Tamworth Borough Council, said she understood the “strong feelings” of residents about the use of a local hotel to house asylum seekers, and added: “We are closely monitoring developments and reviewing our legal position”.

Labour-controlled Stevenage council added: “The council takes breaches of planning control seriously and we’re actively investigating alleged breaches relating to the operation of hotels in Stevenage.”

Actor Noel Clarke has lost his High Court libel case against the publisher of The Guardian, over a series of news articles which featured claims from a number of women.

The first article, published in April 2021, said some 20 women who knew Clarke in a professional capacity had come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.

The 49-year-old actor, writer and director, best known for his 2006 film Kidulthood and starring in Doctor Who, sued the publisher and vehemently denied “any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing” – but the court has found Guardian News and Media (GNM) successfully defended the legal action on the grounds of truth and public interest.

The meanings of all eight of the newspaper’s publications were found to be “substantially true”, the judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, said in a summary of the findings.

“I have accepted some of Mr Clarke’s evidence… but overall I find that he was not a credible or reliable witness,” she said.

In her ruling, the judge also said suggestions that more than 20 witnesses, “none of whom are parties or have a stake in this case, as [Clarke] does” had come to court to lie was “inherently implausible”.

From the evidence heard, it was “clear that women have been speaking about their experiences of working with Mr Clarke for many years”, she said.

‘A deserved victory for women who suffered’

Lucy Osborne and Sirin Kale, the journalists who carried out the investigation, told Sky News they had always been confident in everything published.

“I think that this is not a problem that’s going to go away,” said Osborne. “This kind of behaviour very much still happens in the TV and film industry and other industries. So I do hope this judgment gives other women the confidence to speak out about what they’ve experienced.”

Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner described the ruling as “a deserved victory for those women who suffered because of the behaviour of Noel Clarke”.

She continued: “Going to court is difficult and stressful, yet more than 20 women agreed to testify in the High Court, refusing to be bullied or intimidated.

“This is also a landmark judgment for Guardian journalism, and for investigative journalism in Britain… The judgment is clear that our investigation was thorough and fair, a template for public interest journalism.”

Clarke’s response

Clarke described the result as disappointing and maintained he believes the newspaper’s reporting was “inaccurate and damaging”.

“I have never claimed to be perfect,” he said. “But I am not the person described in these articles. Overnight I lost everything.”

He said he wanted to thank witnesses who supported his case, as well as his family, “who never stopped believing there was something worth fighting for”.

What happened during the trial?

The trial took place from early March to early April 2025, hearing evidence from multiple witnesses who made accusations against Clarke, including that he had allegedly shared nude photographs of them without their consent, groped them, and asked them to look at him when he was exposed.

Clarke also gave evidence over several days. At one stage, the actor appeared visibly emotional as he claimed the publisher had “smashed my life” with its investigation.

His lawyer told the court he had been made a “scapegoat” and was an “easy target”, as a star at the height of his success when the media industry “zealously sought to correct itself” following the #MeToo movement.

The actor had been handed the outstanding British contribution to cinema award at the BAFTAs just a few weeks before the report was published. Following the article, BAFTA announced it had suspended his membership.

But lawyers for The Guardian told how newspaper’s investigation was “careful and thorough”, saying it had been carried out “conscientiously” by the journalists involved.

In March 2022, police said the actor would not face a criminal investigation over the allegations.

On the 10th anniversary of the Shoreham air disaster, the families of some of those killed have criticised the regulator for what they describe as a “shocking” ongoing attitude towards safety.

On 22 August 2015, a vintage fighter jet plummeted out of the sky and crashed into one of the busiest roads in Sussex, killing 11 men.

Most of them weren’t even watching the aerobatic display overhead when they were engulfed in a fireball that swept down the dual carriageway.

Jacob Schilt, 23, and his friend Matthew Grimstone, also 23, were driving to play in a match for their football team, Worthing United FC.

Both sets of parents are deeply angry that their beloved sons lost their lives in this way.

“It obviously changed our lives forever, and it’s a huge reminder every 22nd of August, because it’s such a public anniversary. It’s destroyed our lives really,” his mum, Caroline Shilt, said.

“It was catastrophic for all of us,” Jacob’s father, Bob, added.

‘They had no protection’

Sue and Phil Grimstone argue that the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has not been held accountable for allowing the airshow to take place where it did.

“At Shoreham, the permission given by the CAA did not allow displaying aircraft to perform over paying spectators or their parked cars,” they said.

“But aircraft were permitted to fly aerobatics directly over the A27, which was in the display area, a known busy road.

“This was about ignoring the safety of people travelling on a major road in favour of having an air show. They had no protection.”

Caroline Schilt said the continuing lack of accountability, a decade after the disaster, “makes us very angry.”

A series of catastrophic errors

The crash happened while the experienced pilot, Andy Hill, a former RAF instructor, was attempting to fly a loop in a 1950s Hawker Hunter jet.

But he made a series of catastrophic errors. His speed as the plane pitched up into the manoeuvre was far too slow, and therefore, he failed to get enough height to be able to pull out of the dive safely. The jet needed to be at least 1,500ft higher.

Mr Hill survived the crash but says he does not remember what happened, and a jury at the Old Bailey found him not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter in 2019.

When the inquest finally concluded in 2022, the coroner ruled the men had been unlawfully killed because of a series of “gross errors” committed by the pilot.

The rules around air shows have been tightened up since the crash, with stricter risk assessments, minimum height requirements, crowd protection distances, and checks on pilots.

But Jacob and Matt’s families believe the CAA still isn’t doing enough to protect people using roads near airshows, or other bystanders not attending the events themselves.

“They’re really not thinking about third parties and other road users,” said Caroline. “It’s quite shocking” added Bob.

The families recently raised concerns about the Duxford airshow in a meeting with the CAA.

While aircraft are no longer allowed to fly aerobatics over the M11, they do so nearby – and can fly over the road at 200ft to reconfigure and return. If the M11 has queuing traffic in the area, the display must be stopped or curtailed.

The Grimstones believe this demonstrates accepting “an element of risk” and are frustrated that the CAA only commissioned an independent review looking at congested roads and third-party protection earlier this year.

“We feel the CAA are still dragging their feet when it comes to the safety of third parties on major roads directly near an air show,” they said.

The family have complained about the CAA to the parliamentary ombudsman.

‘There are still question marks’

Some experts also believe the CAA has questions to answer about a previous incident involving Mr Hill, after organisers of the 2014 Southport Airshow brought his display to an emergency stop because he had flown too close to the crowd, and beneath the minimum height for his display.

In its investigation into the Shoreham disaster, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) later found that while the CAA inspector present had an informal discussion with the pilot, no further action was taken, and the incident was not reported to the AAIB.

Retired pilot Steve Colman has spent many years looking into what happened at Shoreham, and he believes the CAA failed to fulfil their statutory obligation to fully investigate and report the incident at Southport.

“If it had been properly investigated,” he said, “it’s likely the minimum height on the pilot’s display authorisation would have been increased – from 500ft on the Hawker Hunter, it would probably have been increased to 800-1000ft. Or it could have been cancelled. But we will never know.

“You have to ask the question – if the Southport incident had been investigated, then was Shoreham more likely or less likely to have occurred?” he said. “I think there can only be one answer – it’s less likely to have occurred.”

Tim Loughton, who was the MP for Shoreham at the time, believes a balance must be struck.

“We don’t want to regulate these events out of existence completely. A lot of the smaller air shows no longer happen because they couldn’t comply with the new regulations … but certainly there are still question marks over the way the CAA conducted and continues to conduct itself. I would welcome more parliamentary scrutiny.”

Read more from Sky News:
London Underground workers to strike
Man charged with killing ice cream seller

Rob Bishton, chief executive at the CAA, said: “Our thoughts remain with the families and friends of those affected by the Shoreham Airshow crash.

“Following the crash, several investigations and safety reviews were carried out to help prevent similar incidents in the future. This included an immediate review of airshow safety and a full investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. All recommendations and safety improvements from these reviews were fully implemented.

“Airshows continue to be subject to rigorous oversight to ensure the highest possible safety standards are maintained.

“At a previous airshow in 2014 the pilot involved in the Shoreham accident was instructed to abort a display by the show’s flying director. This incident was investigated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and regulatory action was taken.”

Mr Bishton added: “As part of the work to review the safety oversight of airshows following the tragic Shoreham crash, the actions taken by the regulator following such a stop call were enhanced.”

But the families of those killed still believe much more could be done.