More than twelve local councils have pledged to contest the operation of controversial hotels used for asylum seekers, amid accusations against the Labour government of prioritizing migrants over citizens.

In a recent turn, the Home Office won a legal battle as the Court of Appeal lifted an injunction that had required the removal of 138 migrants from the Bell Hotel located in Epping, Essex.

The government argued that prioritizing the human rights of asylum seekers by providing them accommodation in hotels was more important than the local families’ safety concerns.

Nonetheless, this decision was met with anger from MPs and the local council. Reform leader Nigel Farage claimed that under Sir Keir Starmer, illegal migrants seemed to have more rights than British citizens.

Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative party, also criticized the prime minister for allegedly valuing the rights of illegal immigrants over those of British citizens.

Now at least 13 councils have vowed to fight back and press ahead with campaigns to shut down asylum hotels in their areas. 

The Times has reported that at least four councils run by Labour are part of this resistance, including Wirral Council, Stevenage Borough Council, Tamworth Borough Council, and Rushmoor Borough Council.

Meanwhile, Epping Forest District Council is considering taking the Court of Appeal’s decision on the Bell Hotel to the Supreme Court to get the migrants removed.

Former lord chancellor Lord Falconer today said the Government was right to take the Epping case to the Court of Appeal but said people wanted action to close asylum hotels.

He rejected suggestions that the UK may have to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights to be able to efficiently remove people with no right to be in the country.

Lord Falconer, who served under former prime minister Sir Tony Blair, told BBC Radio 4’s Today: ‘We’ve obviously got to move forward in relation to closing the hotels and also stopping the crossings.’

If the Epping injunction had not been overturned on Friday, some 138 asylum seekers would no longer have been able to be housed there beyond September 12.

The case could have had wider ramifications, as more than 200 hotels are being used to house asylum seekers around the country.

Lord Falconer said: ‘The Government always has the burden of doing what’s possible and the Government is doing the right thing in relation to it, but there’s a lot more to do, and if we don’t, as a government, do it, then you’ll see those opinion polls raised yet further for Reform, because they don’t have the burden of having to be practical.

‘But the country wants some action in relation to it.’

Last night anger began building outside the hotel at news of the ruling. 

The council said the owners of the three-star hotel had breached planning rules by using it as accommodation for small-boat migrants.

Somani Hotels, which owns the establishment, and the Home Office challenged the injunction.

The three Court of Appeal judges said last week’s decision by High Court judge Mr Justice Eyre was ‘seriously flawed’.

Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said: ‘We conclude that the judge made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision.

‘The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere.’ 

Lord Justice Bean added that such an injunction ‘may incentivise’ other councils to take steps similar to those taken by Epping.

Lawyers for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had argued that shutting the hotel would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ which would have encouraged similar litigation by other councils.

Mr Farage claimed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been ‘used’ by the Government ‘against the people of Epping’.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said the Epping case had ‘seen the Labour Government using the courts against the British public’.

He added: ‘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.’

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick called the ruling ‘extremely disappointing’ as he urged councils to still take action to close asylum hotels in their areas.

He said: ‘Yvette Cooper’s decision to put two fingers up to the legitimate anger of the British public will surely inspire even more protests across the country. People are fed up with the Government siding with illegal migrants over the British people.’ 

Epping council said it was ‘deeply disappointed’ by the ruling, which had led to ‘doubt and confusion’.

Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said while the Government was successful in its appeal, the reality of using hotels to house asylum seekers was ‘untenable’ and called for refugees to be housed in neighbourhoods.

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 protest.’

Border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said: ‘We inherited a chaotic asylum accommodation system costing billions.

‘This government will close all hotels by the end of this Parliament and 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 £9million a day.’

Epping’s legal challenge followed a series of protests outside the hotel amid accusations of sexual assault regarding two men being housed there.

Some protests involved clashes with police, resulting in six men being charged with violent disorder, two of whom have pleaded guilty. Two residents of the Bell Hotel have been charged with sexual assault.

Essex Police were anticipating trouble last night, with as many as four marked vans parked on the hotel’s forecourt from early in the afternoon, and ten officers standing outside. Migrants had reportedly been advised to stay inside.

Within minutes of the judges’ decision, local Conservative councillor Shane Yerrell arrived at the hotel. 

He said: ‘This decision is disgusting. I’ve just been on the phone with the father of the girl whose sexual assault case involving one of the migrants has been in court this week.

‘This decision is disgusting for them. Local mums and dads want the hotel closed – as the first judgment said.’

The number of protesters outside the hotel was growing by 5pm, with new arrivals including ‘pink ladies’ great-grandmother-of-five Shirley Mooney, 68, alongside her neighbour and fellow grandmother Carmen MacDonald, 60.

Both were wearing T-shirts with ‘The only way is Epping’ on the front – and ‘Send them home, protect our kids’ on the back.

Ms Mooney worked in the Bell as a manager until 1998, said of the latest judgment: ‘I am absolutely disgusted. It’s horrific, a joke.

‘Whose side are these judges on? They need the sack. As soon as we heard the news, we came down here to show our support. We won’t stop.’

The only person here celebrating the judgment last night was a migrant resident.

Advised by staff not to speak or leave his room, he texted your reporter to say of the judges’ decision: ‘I am pleased. ‘It had been a worry.’