Reporting from the scene, Adam Toms says that the atmosphere outside is friendly despite the anger felt following the decision.

Video footage shows Sweet Caroline playing from a speaker.

A protester outside the Bell Hotel in Epping said the Court of Appeal ruling was “devastating” and could “cause civil unrest”.

Carmen, who wore a pink top that said “Pink Ladies Say, The Only Way is Epping, Send Them Home” on it, said she was “very let down” by the ruling.

Speaking outside the Bell Hotel, the Epping resident told the PA news agency: “We come every week – march, protest – and today’s ruling is just devastating, absolutely devastating. It will probably cause civil unrest.

“It’s shocking, it’s like they’ve won. The schools go back next week – the kids will be walking around the back, it’s not good.”

Asked why she was protesting outside the hotel, Carmen, who did not give her surname, said: “To show our support – get them out.

“We’re not racist, and I’m all for things done legally, but these are unvetted 18-30s, maybe some plus.

“We don’t know who they are, we don’t know what they’ve done, but now they’re letting us know what they’re like.”

Speaking outside the Bell Hotel, Mr Yerrell told the PA news agency: “All the local parents felt like there was one big step forward when the High Court agreed to close the hotel and things started to calm down.

“But then for the Home Office and the Government to both appeal and that be accepted today is hurtful.”

Mr Yerrell added: “You can’t come out and say: ‘These protests in Epping are wrong, I completely condemn them’, but then go against what the people of Epping want, which is the hotel to be closed.

“For the Home Secretary to come out, or her barristers to come out, and say the needs of the asylum seekers are more important than ours – you don’t even know them, you don’t know the history.

“How can you put that before your own people? Or, most importantly, before the children that are frightened to go to school?

“Some of the parents are even talking about taking their kids out of that school now because they’re too frightened of what might happen when they go back in two weeks.”

Richard Brace, 60, a carer for a relative, has lived in the Essex town all his life.

He said: “We’ll keep protesting.

“Whether it’s going to change anyone’s mind is another matter.

“But we will be here every Thursday and Sunday, and whatever days in between.”

“The ruling went against the public’s wishes”, he added.

“It’s going to cause disruption; it’s going to cause bad feeling.”

There will “definitely” be civil disorder, the local said. “I’ve got a feeling this is the way we’re heading.”

This is Anna Hall, 57, works in accounts and used to live in Epping.

She believes that the ruling could lead to more protests in Epping.

Express.co.uk Senior Reporter Adam Toms says around 20 protesters are outside the Bell Hotel in Epping.

Shirley Mooney, 68, used to work at the Bell Hotel in 1998/9 in conferencing and banqueting.

She’s lived in Epping for 31 years.

The asylum seekers have won, she said.

“Why can’t they just go?”

A Pink Lady named Carmen, 60, who didn’t wish to provide her surname or occupation is stood outside the Bell Hotel brandishing a Union Flag.

She has lived in Epping for four years, and has attended nearly every protest outside the hotel on Thursdays and Saturdays.

Speaking to Express.co.uk, she said: “I’m absolutely heartbroken.”

“They’re probably all laughing in there, aren’t they?”, Carmen said.

“The fact they’re saying they’ve got more rights than we have – it’s an absolute joke. Keir Starmer needs to go.”

The full written ruling overturning the temporary injunction will be handed down virtually at 4pm on Monday, court listings show, as per BBC News.

A summer of the court’s judgement was read out by Lord Justice Bean earlier.

Gloucestershire Constabulary says a policing operation will be taking place in Gloucester on Saturday due to a planned protest outside a hotel which is housing asylum seekers.

Assistant Chief Constable Arman Mathieson said: “I’d like to reassure people in our communities that we are aware of and are well prepared for the planned protest tomorrow.

“Police liaison teams have spoken with individuals from the groups due to attend and their co-operation has helped us put suitable plans in place.

“However, we would like to stress that any disorder will not be tolerated in our county and we will take immediate action against anyone who breaks the law.

“Our priority is keeping people safe and in order to do that, we have been working with partner organisations and continuing our community engagement work.”

Anyone who may have information about planned protests or disorder is encouraged to contact Gloucestershire Police by reporting online at https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/ro/report/ or calling 101.

Other protests planned to in towns and cities including Oxford, Exeter, Wakefield, Long Eaton and Crewe, The Telegraph reports.

Demonstrators carrying Union and St George’s flagshave been protesting outside the Bell Hotel following the appeal decision.

Chris Whitbread, the leader of Epping Forest District Council has called for calm after the Government won its court appeal.

Speaking to Times Radio, he said: “I’m just very deeply disappointed and it’s really bad news for the local residents of Epping.

“We saw yesterday the government say that asylum seekers have more rights than my residents. I’m really cross with this ruling.

“Obviously we’ll now reflect on where we are. Obviously we’re still going to court in October to go for a final injunction and we will be pushing hard to make sure that’s successful, but we will do everything we can still.”

“I call for calm,” he added. “There’s been peaceful protests and there’s been non peaceful protests outside the hotel. You saw that as part of our case.

“But I just call for residents to be calm. As their district council, we will do everything we can do but we do need people to be calm.

“This is an awful position for the town, for the students who go back to school next week, and for the residents and businesses who have been disrupted during the protests and such.

“So yeah, I’m really concerned for the future of the town at the moment.”

The leader of Epping District Council says he’s “really disappointed” by the court’s decision today.

Chris Whitbread told Sky News: “We now have confusion all around us.

“We’ll be back in October, we will continue to fight for the interests of our residents.

“That certainly hasn’t been served in the court’s today.”

Mr Whitbread says he has “great concern” Epping residents.

“If people feel they need to protest, please protest peacefully. The residents of Epping don’t want to see violent protests in our town,” he told the news outlet.

“It’s a lovely town and we want it to get back to normal.

“Unfortunately what the Home Office has done to us today doesn’t allow this to happen.”

Ken Williamson, member of cabinet for Epping Forest District Council, spoke outside the court following the ruling.

Mr Williamson, who represents the Buckhurst Hill West ward, told reporters: “We understand Government faces a dilemma, but that should not be at the expense of local communities.

“Planning law may seem dull, it might seem boring, but it goes to the heart of the relationship between local communities and good government.

“It enshrines the rights of local people to have a say within their own communities, and it should not be set aside lightly. The Government can still listen.

He added: “It needs to understand and take responsibility for the events that have taken place in Epping over the past six weeks, for the trauma and disruption brought upon our community.”

Lee Anderson, Reform MP for Ashfield, wrote on X: “Shocker. So we have a Labour Government stating they want to end the use of hotels for illegal migrants yet use your money to go to court to keep the same hotels open for illegal migrants.”

He added that only Reform UK will “end this madness”.

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister for Border Security and Asylum has defended the appeal, emphasising the importance of closing hotels in an “orderly” way.

She also reaffirmed the government’s commitment to end the use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers by the end of the current Parliament.

“We appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day,” she said in a statement.

The Conservative shadow home secretary has responded to the Court of Appeal Decision, and branded the Labour government “too weak” to fix what he calls a “full blown border crisis”.

Writing on X, he said: “The Epping case has seen the Labour Government using the courts against the British public

“The government even brazenly said in court that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people.

“The numbers in asylum hotels were dropping fast before the election – but have risen since because Labour has lost control of our borders.

“We need a proper deterrent so that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed on arrival. Then no one would bother crossing in the first place.

“We had a plan to do this – the Rwanda plan – but Labour scrapped it just before it was due to start. And as a result, numbers crossing the channel are now the worst ever

“We have a full blown border crisis and public safety crisis – but this government is too weak to take the action needed to fix it.”

Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister for Border Security and Asylum has spoken out to defend the appeal following the decision, and reaffirmed the government’s commitment to end the use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers by the end of the current Parliament.

“We appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day,” she said in a statement.

“The number of hotels has almost halved since its peak in 2023 and we have brought down costs by 15 per cent saving £700m and putting us on track to save a billion pounds a year by 2028-29.”

Dame Angela said ministers are working to “relieve pressure on the system” by cracking down on people smugglers that fuel small boats crossings.

Epping Forest District Council’s leader has called for calm after the Court of Appeal ruling.

Councillor Chris Whitbread told Times Radio: “I call for calm. There’s been peaceful protests and there’s been non peaceful protests outside the hotel.”

He added: “We saw yesterday the Government say that asylum seekers have more rights than my residents. I’m really cross with this ruling. Obviously we’ll now reflect on where we are.

“Obviously we’re still going to court in October to go for a final injunction and we will be pushing hard to make sure that’s successful, but we will do everything we can still.”

He added: “This is an awful position for the town … I’m really concerned for the future of the town at the moment.”

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has reacted to the ruling.

He claimed in a post on X: “The government has used ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) against the people of Epping. Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer”.

Lord Justice Bean did not mention the ECHR in the judgement today. The three judges ruled that arguments about a “hierarchy of rights” were “unattractive”.

Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe said: “The Home Office wins its Epping appeal. A Government against its own people”.

Reacting to the overturning of the injunction, Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said while the Government was successful in its appeal, the reality of using hotels to house asylum seekers is “untenable”. He said: “Waiting until 2029 to end their use is no longer an option.

“As long as hotels remain open, they will continue to be flashpoints for protests, fuelling division and leaving people who have fled war and persecution feeling unsafe.

“Through our frontline work we see how refugees housed in neighbourhoods, rather than isolated in hotels, are able to rebuild their lives, enter training or work, and contribute to the local economy.”

The refugee charity urged ministers to adopt a “one off” scheme granting temporary permission to stay to asylum seekers from countries most likely to be recognised as refugees as a way to close hotels by next year, according to its own analysis.

The Government has pledged to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029.

Cllr Ken Williamson from Epping Forest District Council has just spoken outside court.

He said the council was motivated out of concern for the wellbeing of locals.

The Conservative councillor said where the council had clarity and resolution, it now has doubt and confusion.

He added: “This is not the end of the matter.” Mr Williamson said while the temporary injunction has been lifted by the Court of Appeal, the permanent injunction still has to be heard.

He said: “Our battle on behalf of residents will continue. We’ll be back in court where we hope the strength of our case will prevail.”

After the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Lisa Foster of Richard Buxton Solicitors, which represents Somani Hotels, said: “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the injunction should not have been granted by the High Court.

“Our clients realise that they have been caught in the middle of a much wider debate on the treatment of asylum seekers and respectfully ask that members of the public understand that the Bell Hotel has simply been providing a contracted service that the Government requires.

“We now ask that all associated with the Bell Hotel are left alone to continue to support the Government’s asylum plans as best they can.

“We are grateful to the Court of Appeal for appreciating the urgency of the matter from everyone’s point of view and dealing with the matter so swiftly.

“We have no further comment and will not be commenting on the matter again.”

Shadow Housing Secretary James Cleverly has now reacted to the ruling.

Mr Cleverly wrote on X: “I’m sure that Yvette Cooper and the Home Office officials think this is good news. It really isn’t.

“Cutting local people and their elected representatives out of the loop isn’t a good look”.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch’s reaction to the ruling was posted on social media just after Mr Jenrick’s (see post below).

She said the ruling is a setback, but not the end. Mrs Badenoch urged Conservative led councils looking to bring similar challenges to “KEEP GOING”.

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has reacted to the Court of Appeal’s ruling. He said it was an extremely disappointing decision and Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.

Mr Jenrick said Government lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”. He said: “In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people. Well, they are not.”

The former immigration minister said the British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. He claimed: “Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county.

“But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?”

The Conservative MP said his team and Law For Borders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.

Mr Jenrick said: “There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The Government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last Government should have done and I’ve argued for years.”

Quashing the injunction, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said: “We grant permission to appeal, both to Somani and to (the Home Office).”

He continued: “We allow the appeals and we set aside the injunction imposed on 19 August 2025.”

A temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, has been overturned at the Court of Appeal.

Lord Justice Bean is now pointing out errors in the High Court judge’s decision to grant the temporary injunction.

He says: “We conclude that the judge made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision.”

He continued: “The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”

He added such an injunction “may incentivise” other councils to take similar steps as Epping Forest District Council.

The judge said: “The potential cumulative impact of such ad-hoc applications was a material consideration… that was not considered by the judge.”

The three senior judges have ruled the Home Office can intervene in the case related to a temporary injunction concerning the Bell Hotel.

Lord Justice Bean has granted Ms Cooper’s application for permission to appeal. He has also granted the Home Secretary intervenor status.

He says: “The Home Secretary has clear statutory duties to asylum seekers under 1999 legislation. These include a duty to provide support to them and prevent destitution.”

He said given these duties in addition to her constitutional role relating to public safety the Home Secretary is plainly directly affected.

The judge has been explaining how Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is directly affected by issues in the case and the impact of granting a temporary injunction on providing asylum accommodation.

Lord Justice Bean has bee laying out facts about the case. He has just mentioned the fact that protests have been taking place outside the Bell since July.

Reading a summary of the ruling, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said: “We should say at the outset what this appeal is not about.

“It is not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise.”

Lord Justice Bean has started reading a summary of the panel’s judgement.

The senior judges said two linked applications for permission to appeal were brought by the Home Secretary and the second by Bell hotel owner Somani Hotels.

The appeals concern the temporary injunction granted to the council on August 19.

The temporary injunction restrains Somani from using the Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.

The three senior judges have begun giving their judgment on whether to overturn a temporary injunction which is set to block asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex.

Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, is reading a summary of their decision at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The BBC is reporting that the courtroom has begun to fill up so the decision looks like it may follow soon.

Three senior judges are due to deliver their ruling any time from 2pm.

Stephen Kinnock sparked backlash as he discussed the ongoing migrant crisis on Good Morning Britain. The health minister appeared on Friday’s instalment of the ITV programme alongside presenters Robert Rinder and Kate Garraway, where he was quizzed about the government’s stance on removing migrants from the Bell Hotel in Epping.

Earlier in the month, Epping Forest District Council has obtained a temporary High Court injunction preventing asylum seekers from being accommodated at the hotel in Essex. People housed inside the Bell Hotel are due to be moved out by 12 September.

The Labour government attempted to overturn the injunction, reportedly using the argument that “those in the hotel have greater rights than people in the country”.

Speaking to the politician, Kate asked: “How has the government got itself on the wrong side of the people of Britain?”

Mr Kinnock failed to answer the question directly as he responded: “We are deeply, deeply frustrated by the fact that these hotels are being used for asylum seekers, that is not what these hotels are for. They were often really valued assets in local communities.”

Elon Musk has weighed in on the situation on X, the platform he owns, suggesting the imminent decision will have profound implications.

The tech billionaire posted: “As goes Epping, so goes all of England.”

Speaking to the BBC, one man, Abdi, from Somalia, who moved into the hotel in May, said: “We don’t know if one day a bus comes and says we’re going out from here.

“If this happens – if we are taken out of this place – then they will surely take us from every place we go to. It’s going to be the same.”

The man claimed he spent three years travelling to the UK having fled a terrorist group, paying £864) to cross the English Channel.

All name signs have been removed from Bell Hotel Epping on before judges rule on whether to overturn an injunction after migration protests. No Police are present.

Since Sir Keir Starmer became Prime Minister on July 5, 2024, more than 50,000 migrants have crossed the English Channel illegally.

Sir Keir has pledged to “smash the gangs” facilitating these crossings, introducing a “one in, one out” deal with France to return some migrants while allowing others with legitimate asylum claims to enter legally.

Despite these efforts, critics argue his policies lack immediate impact, as crossings continue to rise amid favourable weather and persistent smuggling operations.

The Prime Minister remains confident that his Border Security Command and international cooperation will eventually curb the crisis.

Commenting on the suggestion by Home Office lawyers yesterday that the rights of asylum seekers outweigh those of the people of Epping, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage posted on X: “Illegal migrants have more rights than the people of Essex.

“Reform UK will put an end to this.”

Hotels across the country have been converted into temporary shelters for migrants, a move that has prompted protests in several towns and cities.

Officials say the scale of arrivals, including many who entered without legal permission, has placed heavy pressure on asylum and housing systems.

Police and local media have reported incidents of crime, including sexual assaults, linked to some of those housed in the hotels.

Community groups and residents argue that services are overstretched and safety is at risk, while migrant advocates point to long delays and poor conditions.

The tensions reflect years of unresolved disputes over border control, asylum policy, and government planning.

LBC broadcaster Nick Ferrari reacted with rage to the Home Office suggesting that “meeting the human rights of migrants by putting them in hotels outweighs the safety concerns of local families” on Friday’s radio show. The 67-year-old didn’t hold back and began: “How dare they? How bl**dy dare they?

“A government department putting forward the idea that the need to meet the human rights of asylum seekers by housing them in hotels outweighs the safety concerns of local families…

“I will say it again. How bl**dy dare they? Who is paying the council tax that pays for the local authority that is quite rightly trying to look after the interests, and possible safety – bear in mind there is a case going before the courts – possible safety of some citizens?”

Closing all asylum hotels immediately could lead to migrants living “destitute in the streets”, a minister has warned, ahead of a court ruling on the Bell Hotel in Epping.

Health minister Stephen Kinnock said there were “a whole range of options” for where to move migrants to if the hotel were to close, including disused warehouses, office blocks and military barracks.

However, he warned against a “disorderly discharge” from asylum hotels.

Mr Kinnock told Sky News: “It’s not a question of if we close the hotels, it’s a question of when and how we close the hotels, and what we don’t want to have is a disorderly discharge from every hotel in the country, which would actually have far worse consequences than what we currently have, in terms of the impact that would have on asylum seekers potentially living destitute in the streets.

“And I don’t think any one of the communities that are campaigning on this hotels issue want to see that.”

A post on the X page of Bell Common Epping Protest said: “Protest tonight at The Bell Hotel, Epping!

“We made sure our voices were heard loud and clear and of course, we helped the police get their daily steps in by taking them on a scenic tour of the countryside.”

Lawyers from the Home Office and the Bell Hotel have been challenging a previous High Court ruling stopping migrants from being housed at the hotel in Epping.

A judgment on the appeal is expected today at 2pm BST.

Epping Forest District Council is opposing the appeal bids, with barrister Philip Coppel KC stating in written submissions that the case “sets no precedent” and there was “no compelling reason” for the injunction to be overturned.

In court on Thursday, Robin Green, also representing the authority, said it had not previously taken enforcement action against Somani Hotels over the use of the Bell as it had been “unproblematic”.

Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction last week after the authority claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers.

Other councils, including Labour-run authorities, have since publicly announced their intention to seek legal advice over whether they could achieve similar injunctions for hotels in their areas.

The Home Office is also seeking to challenge the judge’s decision not to let it intervene in the case.

In written submissions for Thursday’s hearing, Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said Mr Justice Eyre had “no regard to the obvious risk that other local planning authorities would adopt the same approach” as EFDC.

Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, in written submissions on Thursday, said that Mr Justice Eyre “overlooked” the “hardship” that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.

He said that the “extremely high-profile nature of the issue” created a “risk of a precedent being set”.

Essex Police said there was a peaceful demonstration outside the hotel from around 5pm on Thursday, with a group marching to a local school before a section returned to the original protest site.

An order was in place giving officers the power to direct people to remove face coverings or face arrest, while there was also a designated area for the protest.

A police spokesman said: “A small section of the group which had returned to the designated site walked out of the that area. Officers engaged with them and directed them to return to the designated protest area which they did shortly after.

“The protest activity had concluded by around 8.30pm.”

Essex Police denied claims protesters tried to “storm the hotel” saying this did not accurately reflect what took place.

Three senior judges are poised to rule on whether to overturn a temporary injunction which is set to block asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, with tensions high in the Essex town.

Somani Hotels, which owns the property, and the Home Office are both seeking to challenge a High Court ruling which will prevent 138 asylum seekers from being housed there beyond September 12.

He said: “Because of the great urgency of this matter, we will aim to give judgment at 2pm tomorrow.

“If it proves impractical for us to meet the deadline, we will let people know in advance.”