Asylum hotel ruling won't feel like much of a victory at Home Office

"They will be breathing a sigh of relief having feared that, had they lost this appeal, other local councils could bring legal challenges against the use of hotels to house asylum seekers in their area. That would have risked throwing the whole system into chaos because there are thousands of asylum seekers awaiting decisions on their cases and limited accommodation options."

"But the government has a legal duty to keep them off the streets. This court ruling effectively resets the situation. It gives ministers the time to fulfil their promise of removing all asylum seekers from hotels in "a controlled and orderly way" by 2029. But there will not be any champagne corks popping in the Home Office. That's because in order to uphold their legal responsibility to protect asylum seekers, they have had to argue in favour of using hotels to house them."

The Court of Appeal ruling allows asylum seekers to remain at the Bell Hotel in Epping, averting a precedent that could have let councils challenge hotel use nationally. Ministers feared that losing the appeal would have risked system-wide disruption because thousands of asylum seekers await decisions and accommodation is limited. The government retains a duty to prevent people being left on the streets and can now pursue its target of removing asylum seekers from hotels by 2029 in a controlled manner. Political opponents have seized on the legal defence of hotel use, intensifying criticism amid recent migration pressures.

Read at www.bbc.com