Two Labour-run councils have said they are considering taking legal action to stop the use of hotels to house migrants in their areas after Epping council won a temporary injunction on Tuesday.

The leaders of Wirral and Tamworth councils both say they are considering their legal options in the wake of the Epping case, citing similar concerns about the impact of the hotels on their local communities.

Epping Forest District Council won an interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at The Bell Hotel, after arguing its owners did not have planning permission to use it to house migrants.

Politics latest: Judge in Epping hotel case was Tory candidate four times

In a statement, Paula Basnett, the Labour leader of Wirral council, said: “Like many other local authorities, we have concerns about the Home Office’s practice of placing asylum seekers in hotels without consultation or regard to local planning requirements.

“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.

“Wirral has always been proud of its record in supporting families and those fleeing conflict, but it is unacceptable for the government to impose unsuitable, short-term arrangements that disrupt communities and bypass local decision-making.

“If necessary, we will not hesitate to challenge such decisions in order to protect both residents and those seeking refuge.”

Carol Dean, the Labour leader of Tamworth Borough Council, said she understands the “strong feelings” of residents about the use of a local hotel to house asylum seekers, and that the council is “listening to their concerns and taking them seriously”.

She pointed out that under the national Labour government, the use of hotels has halved from 402 to 210, with the aim of stopping the use of any hotels by the end of this parliament.

But she continued: “Following the temporary High Court injunction granted to Epping Forest District Council, we are closely monitoring developments and reviewing our legal position in light of this significant ruling.”

Cllr Dean added that they had previously explored their legal options to challenge the use of the hotel but decided against them, as temporary injunctions were not being upheld.

However, the Epping ruling “represents a potentially important legal precedent”, which is why they are “carefully assessing” its significance for Tamworth.

“We fully recognise the UK government has a statutory duty to accommodate people seeking asylum. However, we have consistently maintained that the prolonged use of hotel accommodation may not represent the best approach – either for our local community or for the asylum seekers themselves,” she said.

“We will continue to work constructively with government departments and all relevant agencies while making sure the voice of our community is heard at the highest levels of government.”

Last night, Conservative-run Broxbourne Council also announced it was exploring its legal options, and the Reform UK leader of Kent County said she was writing to fellow leaders in Kent to explore whether they could potentially take legal action as well.

Use of Epping hotel ‘sidestepped public scrutiny’

The prime minister and the home secretary are under huge pressure to clear the asylum backlog and stop using hotels across the country to house those waiting for their applications to be processed.

Protests have sprung up at migrant hotels across the country. But The Bell Hotel in Epping became a focal point in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Epping Forest District Council sought an interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at the hotel, owned by Somani Hotels Limited, on the basis that using it for that purpose contravened local planning regulations.

The interim injunction demanded that the hotel be cleared of its occupants within 14 days, but in his ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary block, while extending the time limit by which it must stop housing asylum seekers to 12 September.

Somani Hotels said it intended to appeal the decision, its barrister, Piers Riley-Smith, arguing it would set a precedent that could affect “the wider strategy” of housing asylum seekers in hotels.

A government attempt to delay the application was rejected by the High Court judge earlier on Tuesday, Home Office barristers arguing the case had a “substantial impact” on the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers.

But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office’s bid, stating that the department’s involvement was “not necessary”.

Read more:
Asylum seekers face being removed from Epping hotel
Labour smell dirty tricks over asylum hotel court ruling
UK drops Apple encryption demands, says US spy chief

The judge said the hotel’s owners “sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made”.

He added: “It was also deliberately taking the chance that its understanding of the legal position was incorrect. This is a factor of particular weight in the circumstances of this case.”

Reacting to Tuesday’s judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said the government will “continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns”.

She added: “Our work continues to close all asylum hotels by the end of this parliament.”

A row has broken out between the Tories and Reform about previous comments on migrant hotels, so who said what and when?

At the centre of the argument is an interview Robert Jenrick did with Sky News back in November 2022, one week after he was appointed immigration minister in Rishi Sunak’s government.

His appearance came amid a crisis at an asylum seeker processing centre in Kent, which had become severely overcrowded – with migrants sleeping on the floor and families being housed in marquees.

Politics latest: Councils plan legal challenges to migrant hotels

The home secretary at the time, Suella Braverman, had also been accused of allowing the situation to develop by failing to procure sufficient alternative accommodation – such as hotels – for migrants to be taken to.

Asked about this by Sky News in 2022, Robert Jenrick said: “More hotels have been coming online almost every month throughout the whole of this year.

“So, Suella Braverman and her predecessor, Priti Patel, were procuring more hotels. What I have done in my short tenure is ramp that up and procure even more because November, historically, has been one of the highest months of the year for migrants illegally crossing the Channel.”

Fast-forward almost three years, and this clip has been seized on by Reform UK as evidence that Mr Jenrick “boasted” about how many migrant hotels he had opened.

That’s a potentially damaging accusation, given the now shadow justice secretary recently joined protests outside a migrant hotel in Essex.

Mr Jenrick responded by accusing Reform of posting a “selectively clipped” video that didn’t include the context about the Kent processing centre.

To an extent, he has a point.

At the time, the government was fighting accusations that they were risking an expensive court action from migrants claiming they were being detained unlawfully.

The minister’s response was to point out that they were sourcing alternative options to make sure this didn’t happen and to prevent order breaking down in Kent.

Mr Jenrick has also pointed to other comments he made at the time saying, “it is essential we exit the hotels altogether” and describing the expensive hotel bill as “disgraceful”.

But that’s not to say Robert Jenrick hasn’t undergone quite a pronounced shift in both language and substance when it comes to migration.

For instance, in the same Sky News interview in 2022, he said: “I would never demonise people coming to this country in pursuit of a better life. And I understand and appreciate our obligation to refugees.”

At the time, this wasn’t a surprising view from a minister commonly considered to be in the centre of the Tory party.

But Mr Jenrick’s time as immigration minister saw him move further to the right.

As he has since said himself: “I could see the breakdown of the British state was doing immense damage. It angered me, and it motivated me to do absolutely everything to fix the problem.”

The following months saw Mr Jenrick significantly harden his position, to the point that he resigned over the government’s approach.

But the bigger contradiction Reform is trying to get at by picking this fight is around the Tory record.

It is a fact that the use of hotels to house asylum seekers peaked at just over 55,000 while the Conservatives were in power.

Similarly, it’s a fact that legal migration reached record levels on the Tories watch.

Mr Jenrick can fairly claim that – in the final year of his front-bench career – he did go further than most to try to change this.

But he can’t change the data from the time.

Reform knows that – just as it also knows the Tory record on migration is one of the big pull factors bringing their voters over to them.

Read more from Sky News:
US-mexico border wall to be painted black, US says
BBC should be ‘put beyond reach of politicians’

A former Church of England priest who ran a rave-inspired “cult” group has been found guilty of indecently assaulting nine women.

Chris Brain, 68, led the Nine O’Clock Service (NOS) in the 1980s and 1990s in Sheffield, with services aimed at 18 to 30-year-olds featuring multimedia, scantily-dressed women, and a live band.

The movement was initially seen by the church as a “ground-breaking” success story and attracted between 500 to 600 people to worship at 9pm on Sundays after NOS moved from St Thomas Church to The Rotunda in Ponds Forge.

Brain, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, denied committing sexual offences against 13 women, including one count of rape and 36 counts of indecent assault between 1981 and 1995.

Today he was found guilty of 17 counts of indecent assault relating to nine women and acquitted of 15 similar charges.

The jury is still deliberating on five outstanding counts, including the rape charge.

Inner London Crown Court heard Brain’s ordination was “fast-tracked”, including claims he cheated in his exams, and he wore the same cassock as Robert De Niro in The Mission for the ceremony in 1991.

But prosecutors said NOS became a “closed and controlled group”, in which Brain “dominated and abused his position” to sexually assault a “staggering number of women from his congregation”.

NOS collapsed in 1994 after women made allegations about Brain, who resigned from his holy orders in 1995 amid “enormous media interest”, the court heard.

‘Allegations destroyed my life’

Giving evidence, Brain admitted receiving back massages from some NOS members, which he said started as a way to relieve tension headaches, but would “very rarely” lead to sexual activity.

“With some of my closest friends, it would be kissing sometimes, occasionally massaging, stroking. Anything more than that, we would back off,” he said.

He told the jury any touching was done with “100%” consent, and he would’ve “instantly stopped” if anyone had indicated they were uncomfortable.

Brain said the allegations had “basically destroyed my life” and suggested the women had “to exaggerate these things to make it either sexual or controlling” in order “to make a criminal case”.

Brain said he became involved in the dotcom boom in the late 1990s before setting up a business helping smaller firms transition into big companies, which folded once he was charged.