Cross-party movement to end asylum hotels and secure our borders. DM for pro bono assistance or to support our campaign.
Joined August 2025
- Tweets32
- Following10
- Followers6.5K
- Likes68
Pinned Tweet
Lawyers for Borders is a cross-party movement, bringing together lawyers who believe in securing our borders and ending illegal migration.
Our first campaign is helping patriotic councils and communities to resist asylum hotels.
If you need help or are a lawyer, get in touch.
Lawyers for Borders retweeted
It is striking that interim relief has been granted even where the return would be to an obviously safe country.
Human rights activism has once again brought deportations of illegal migrants to a standstill.
This happened when we sought to deport to Rwanda but this time they’ve stopped deportation to France.
The UK must have the power to control its borders without this interference.
Eritrean man wins temporary block on removal to France under government’s "one in, one out" deal bbc.in/4mDKhUR
Until we leave the ECHR nothing will change.
🚨 BREAKING: Sir Keir Starmer’s one in, one out migrant deal was dealt a major blow on Tuesday when the high court blocked the deportation of a 25-year asylum seeker.
Read more ⤵️
telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09…
Fox context, the Court of Appeal routinely refuses permission to appeal as it generally regards @UKSupremeCourt best placed to determine when permission is appropriate.
🚨 NEW: Epping District Council has been denied permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision that asylum seekers can remain in the Bell Hotel
[@eefnews]
Exactly.
The Court deems accommodating asylum seekers the “most important factor” and gives residents’ harms “limited weight”, then points councils & police to restraining local protests instead of stopping hotel use.
Read the full judgment yourself 👇
judiciary.uk/wp-content/uplo…
At the invitation of Yvette Cooper’s lawyers, the Court of Appeal ruled the ‘public interest’ was in keeping illegal migrants in hotel accommodation close to their GP practices, while the harms to Epping residents were put aside.
It even encourages councils and the police to curb local protests rather than stopping the use of hotels housing illegal migrants.
It’s there in black and white: the entire system has been turned against the British people.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
This quotation is not from the Court of Appeal, but from the High Court judgment which imposed the original injunction blocking the use of the hotel for asylum seekers. The judgment that included this paragraph went on to reject the argument in that paragraph.
judiciary.uk/judgments/eppi…
On Friday, the Court only published a summary of their judgment in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd.
The full judgment is available now 👇
judiciary.uk/wp-content/uplo…
The question of shutting down the Bell Hotel for asylum use will soon be reconsidered in October with a full trial.
@EppingTories and @eppingforestdc our team of legal volunteers are on hand and willing to support in any way we can.
Our DMs are open.
Judge Hirst was both poacher and gamekeeper.
The public rightly has no confidence in a system where those who spend their day jobs fighting to keep foreign criminals here then climb onto the bench and block deportations.
Disgraceful.
You won by stating that the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
The question of shutting down the Bell Hotel for asylum use will soon be reconsidered in October with a full trial.
@EppingTories and @eppingforestdc our team of legal volunteers are on hand and willing to support in any way we can.
Our DMs are open.
We’re now in touch with @EppingTories and @eppingforestdc, thank you to those that helped.
Councils elsewhere: if an asylum hotel is operating in your area, we’ll help you shut it down – fast and lawfully.
DM @LawForBorders. Let’s end the asylum hotels fiasco.
Still trying to wrap our heads around how scrapping the injunction reduces protests.
If closing the hotel “incentivises” protests, what do you think keeping it open does? Make it make sense.
This is a fact-specific loss, not a green light for asylum hotels.
Councils still have tools:
- Targeted s.187B injunctions with stronger evidence; and
– s.183 stop notices where the use is recent.
Reach out for support, we’ll triage your case.
This is an extremely disappointing decision.
Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money - your money - to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The Government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the “national interest”.
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 British Government should always put the interests of the British people first. 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?
My team and @LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
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.
Judgment being handed down in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd
🔴 Watch live:
youtube.com/channel/UCvLfIeT…
Yesterday, the Home Office and Somani Hotels challenged the interim planning injunction that stopped use of the Bell Hotel for asylum accommodation (TCPA s.187B).
A reasoned judgment is expected today at 2pm, here’s a summary of the case and the parties submissions 👇
Epping Forest DC’s submissions:
Material change of use from C1 hotel to hostel/sui generis is strongly arguable. Circumstances changed mid-2025 (community impact), making injunction necessary pending a speedy final hearing.
The judge was entitled to grant interim relief.