CHELMSFORD, Essex – Two men have admitted engaging in violent disorder during a protest outside The Bell Hotel in Epping that descended into chaos last summer, Chelmsford Crown Court heard on Monday.
Shaun Thompson, 38, of Buckingham Road, Epping, and Luke Fleming, 21, of Thaxted Road, Buckhurst Hill, entered guilty pleas to the charge of violent disorder relating to events on 17 July 2025. Thompson also pleaded guilty to a separate count of criminal damage after punching a police vehicle.
The court was told the pair “used or threatened unlawful violence” near the hotel, which at the time was accommodating asylum seekers. Judge Alexander Mills released both men on unconditional bail and adjourned sentencing to a later date.
The pleas mark the latest development in a series of prosecutions arising from protests at the hotel, which became a focal point for anti-immigration demonstrations throughout the summer of 2025. The disorder occurred amid heightened local tensions following the arrest of an asylum seeker residing at the premises.
Prosecutors have previously described the 17 July protest as a high-profile event that began peacefully but rapidly deteriorated. Eyewitness accounts and video footage presented in related cases showed fireworks being discharged and eggs thrown at police officers and the hotel building. At least eight Essex Police officers sustained injuries while attempting to maintain order. Projectiles were hurled at officers, and a police car was damaged.
The protests were triggered by the arrest of Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, an Ethiopian national who had arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat and was housed at The Bell Hotel. Kebatu was charged with sexually assaulting a woman and a 14-year-old girl in Epping. He was later convicted of five offences, including sexual assault, at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court. Following a period of imprisonment and an administrative error that led to his temporary release, he was rearrested and deported to Ethiopia in October 2025.
The incident sparked widespread anger in the close-knit market town of Epping, with residents voicing concerns about public safety, particularly for children and vulnerable groups. Demonstrations outside the hotel continued for several months, drawing both local participants and individuals from further afield. While many gatherings remained peaceful, several escalated into confrontations with police, resulting in arrests and charges.
Epping Forest District Council, which does not own or operate the hotel, pursued legal action to halt the use of the premises for asylum accommodation, citing breaches of planning regulations and the “unprecedented levels of protest and disruption”. A temporary High Court injunction was granted in August 2025 but was overturned on appeal later that month. Subsequent rulings confirmed that asylum seekers could remain at the hotel, a decision that frustrated many locals but underscored the complexities of central government housing policy.
Community impact has been significant and multifaceted. On one hand, the protests highlighted genuine grievances among residents. Epping, a prosperous commuter town on the edge of London, prides itself on its safety and family-friendly environment. The sexual assaults, combined with the sudden conversion of a local hotel into asylum accommodation without prior consultation, fuelled perceptions of inadequate oversight and heightened risk. Local councillors and residents reported increased anxiety, with some families altering daily routines to avoid the area around the hotel. Business owners in the vicinity described a temporary downturn in footfall due to the ongoing demonstrations.
On the other hand, the violence that erupted has drawn widespread condemnation. Essex Police emphasised that while the majority of protests were lawful expressions of public concern, isolated acts of disorder inflicted unnecessary harm. Officers faced physical assaults, and the financial cost of policing the events – alongside damage to public property – placed an additional burden on local resources. Chief officers have described the town as having been “turned into a scene of disorder and chaos” during the most volatile episodes, affecting not only residents but also hotel staff and the asylum seekers themselves, some of whom required enhanced security measures.
Three other men – Stuart Williams, Dean Smith and Martin Peagram – were jailed in October 2025 after pleading guilty to violent disorder arising from the same 17 July protest. Their sentences ranged from 18 months to more than two years, with the judge citing the public nature of the disorder and its impact on a busy community area.
Further trials remain pending, including cases involving defendants who deny the charges. Prosecutors have indicated that the Crown Prosecution Service has charged a total of 11 individuals in connection with the Epping protests.
Monday’s hearing underscores the judicial system’s ongoing response to the summer’s events. Defence representatives are expected to present mitigation at sentencing, potentially highlighting the defendants’ early guilty pleas and any personal circumstances. The court will also consider victim personal statements from injured officers and the broader context of community tension.
In a statement following the pleas, Essex Police reiterated its commitment to proportionate policing that balances the right to protest with the need to protect public safety. “We respect lawful demonstration, but violence against officers or damage to property will not be tolerated,” a spokesperson said.
For Epping residents, the episode has left a complex legacy. While the hotel continues to house asylum seekers, local authorities have pledged improved dialogue with central government on future placements. Community leaders have called for calm reflection, acknowledging legitimate safety concerns while rejecting any justification for disorder.
The case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between addressing public anxieties over immigration policy and upholding the rule of law. As sentencing approaches, the focus returns to ensuring accountability for those who crossed the line from protest into violence, while broader questions about asylum accommodation in residential areas remain unresolved.
