Anti-migrant protesters including women and at least one child are pepper sprayed amid angry confrontation with police inside Canary Wharf shopping centre as Labour insist ‘rights of asylum seekers trump locals’

Anti-migrant protesters including women, pensioners and at least one child have been caught by pepper spray used by police as violence erupted inside a Canary Wharf shopping centre. 

A police officer has also been ‘punched in the face’ as demonstrators violently clashed with police at the Canada Square shopping mall, with one child being caught with pepper spray used in an arrest of a protester. 

Footage shared on social media shows droves of angry balaclava-clad men descend on police as officers wrestled the detainee to the ground, as officers quickly create a row blocking the demonstrators off from the detainee. 

As tensions escalated between police and anti-migrant protesters, the two groups continued to tussle, pushing one another back as officers could be heard yelling, ‘back off,’ and ‘move back’.

Amid the chaos a policeman standing behind a row of colleagues is seen reaching over and deploying pepper spray into the crowd of protester with one woman reeling away in agony.

A screaming child, who was also caught by the pepper spray was pictured being carried away for treatment before a masked man wearing a pink t-shirt dabbed his eyes with water-soaked paper roll in a bid to subdue his burning eyes. 

The latest clashes come as the Court of Appeal set aside an injunction granted earlier this month which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Essex beyond September 12.

In recent weeks, the hotel has become the focal point of several protests and counter-protests after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl last month. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, has denied any wrongdoing. 

Earlier today, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson insisted the Home Office was right to argue the rights of asylum seekers trumped those of local residents in the town.

She said the axing of the town’s Bell Hotel – which has been plagued by weeks of unrest  – would have triggered ‘lots of disruption’ and left people ‘on the streets’.

The Met Police has since said the child had been caught with the pepper spray after it was used to detain a man who was witnessed assaulting a member of the public. The circumstances surrounding the incident remain unclear. 

A Met spokesperson said: ‘We are aware other protesters and members of the public may have been temporarily affected by the use of PAVA given the density of the crowds in the area.’ 

Lorraine, a member of the Pink Ladies group, who are protesting for the Britannia Hotel received the brunt of the pepper spray. 

While intensely coughing, she shouted: ‘I’m 70-years-old. We were just walking through.’ The person filming the video also alleged a journalist present had also been pepper sprayed. 

A young woman was also seen reeling in pain immediately after the pepper spray was deployed, whipping her eyes as shouting and commotion could be heard echoing through the shopping centre. 

It is unclear whether any of the protesters required treatment following the incident in Canary Wharf.

Earlier this afternoon, around a hundred counter-protesters faced off with about a dozen anti-immigration demonstrators outside the Britannia Hotel.  

It is believed protesters had gone to the shopping centre after leaving the previous location outside of the hotel. 

Videos shared online showed young children among demonstrators, with some waving England flags as droves of anti-migrant protesters made their way through the shopping centre.

Speaking to a the crowd, Lorraine, who wants businesses to back their campaign of shutting the hotel housing asylum seekers in the Isle of Dogs, said: ‘We need you guys to help us shut down that hotel.

‘Otherwise we will be hear every single week, and we will get bigger, bigger and bigger. So Canary Wharf, and your millions, put pen to paper and get the place shut down now!’

Demonstrators could be heard whooping in support of her statements went on to loudly chant: ‘Shut it down, shut it down’. 

The Met Police have since arrested four people after they imposing restrictions on people wearing masks ahead of the anti-asylum protest.

 A Met spokesperson said: ‘The group entered Canary Wharf shopping centre at around 16:30hrs where they stopped for a static protest – a small number of masked protesters then became aggressive towards members of the public and police.

‘Officers made arrests and enforced cordons in the area to prevent a breach of the peace. 

‘A Section 60 AA was put in place for the Isle of Dogs south of the A1261 to prevent people concealing their identity with masks – failure to comply can lead to arrest.

‘A Section 35 dispersal order was also put in place in the same area directing protesters to leave. Both orders last until midnight.

‘Arrests were made for common assault by a protester on a member of the public, possession of class A and B drugs, assault on police/public order offences and failure to disperse. One of our officers was punched in the face – luckily they did not suffered significant injury.’

Commander Adam Slonecki, in charge of policing London this weekend, said: ‘This afternoon we have unfortunately seen more disorder, following the five arrests made yesterday in the West Drayton area.

‘We had plenty of officers on the ground who moved in swiftly to deal with the criminality that occurred inside and outside the shopping centre. We will not tolerate this kind of behaviour.

‘Today’s protest saw many community members attend, including women and children, and we worked to ensure the safety of those there to peacefully represent their views. 

‘Those who arrive at protests masked and intent on causing trouble will continue to be dealt with robustly at future protests.

‘We remain in the area to deter any further disorder and provide reassurance to local residents and businesses while also continuing our investigation into offences committed this afternoon.’

Elsewhere in Epping, three people have been arrested after the latest protest against The Bell Hotel being used to house asylum seekers, with two men and a woman being detained this evening.

A woman was arrested on suspicion of breaching a Section 14 order which was put in place by police on Sunday evening. The order set out specific areas where the protest could take place.

Essex Police said her arrest was “categorically not for flying the Union flag” as some people had suggested.

One man was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after an emblem was reported to have been set alight. This relates to an alleged incident on Friday.

A second man was arrested for breaching the Section 14 order after refusing to leave when the assembly had concluded, police said. All three remain in custody.

During the demonstration chants of Keir Starmer is a ‘w****r’, ‘our kids, our streets’, as well as ‘send them back’, could be heard as they waved Union Jacks and English flags 

Anti-migrant demonstrators have also vowed to ‘redouble their efforts’ to close the hotel, undeterred by the recent ruling. 

Earlier today, Essex Police imposed restrictions ahead of the planned protest in Epping. Any demonstrations were ordered to end by 8pm and protesters were forbidden to block the road.

The force has also put a Section 60AA order in place giving officers the power to order the removal of face coverings.

A dispersal order, which covers the main high street and the area surrounding the hotel, will be in place until 4am.

It comes after three men were arrested and two charged after two police officers were injured in a protest outside the hotel on Friday.

Ross Ellis, 49, of Orchard Croft, Harlow, has been charged with failing to provide a specimen and Jimmy Hillard, 52, of Chequers Road, Loughton, has been charged with assaulting an emergency worker.

Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Hooper said: ‘These restrictions are in place to prevent serious disruption to the lives of our Epping residents, which remains at the forefront of our minds, as well as to prevent serious disorder, to prevent serious violence and to prevent serious damage to property. 

‘The restrictions allow anyone present to lawfully protest to do so within a six-hour window and within sight and sound of the Bell Hotel.

‘We’ve consistently said that we will always seek to facilitate lawful protest but that does not include a right to commit crime, and we’ll take a firm approach to anyone intent on doing that.

In Manchester, videos have emerged of police facing off with demonstrators as anti-migrant protests escalate outside the Best Western Hotel in Fallowfield. 

Protesters have partially blocked the road, as counter-demonstrators use umbrellas to block their identities from those filming. 

The two groups have reportedly clash, with Greater Manchester Police officers speaking with an individual who alleged they were assaulted, Manchester Evening News reported.  

It comes after the Home Office won an appeal to keep the hotel open as lawyers for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper argued shutting the hotel would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ that would have encouraged similar litigation by other councils.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the move showed Prime Minister Keir Starmer ‘puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities.’ 

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage echoed this sentiment, writing on X: ‘Illegal migrants have more rights than the people of Essex. Reform UK will put an end to this.’

Dame Angela Eagle, the asylum minister, maintained the government was following its plan to close migrant hotels by 2029, stressing that the recent Home Office appeal was required so move outs could happen in a ‘controlled and orderly way’ 

Holly Whitbread, the Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder for Epping Forest District Council, said the ruling was ‘deeply disappointing’ but vowed to continue ‘fighting’ the Home Office. 

Last week, the High Court ruled that all 138 asylum seekers at the hotel should be temporarily removed following legal action brought by Epping Forest District Council. 

Quashing the injunction, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said Mr Justice Eyre – who granted the interim injunction last week – ‘made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision’.

‘We grant permission to appeal, both to Somani and to [the Home Office]… We allow the appeals and we set aside the injunction imposed on 19 August 2025,’ he continued.

The judges also ruled that the Home Office could intervene in the case, saying that Mr Justice Eyre made an ‘erroneous’ decision not to let the department be involved.

Reading a summary of their decision, Lord Justice Bean said the Home Office had a ‘constitutional role relating to public safety’ and was affected by the issues. A full trial of the council’s case against the hotel will be held in October. 

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 that such an injunction ‘may incentivise’ other councils to take similar steps to Epping Forest.

He said: ‘The potential cumulative impact of such ad hoc applications was a material consideration… that was not considered by the judge.’

The judge also said that the appeals were ‘not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise’.

Touching on local residents’ concerns, Lord Justice Bean said: ‘The Epping residents’ fear of crime was properly taken into account by the judge as a factor in favour of grant of an injunction. He described it as being of limited weight.’

He added: ‘We agree it is relevant, but in our view, it is clearly outweighed… by the undesirability of incentivising protests, by the desirability in the interests of justice of preserving the status quo for the relatively brief period leading up to the forthcoming trial and by the range of public interest factors which we have discussed in our judgement.’

The full written judgement in the case, which Lord Justice Bean said runs to over 120 paragraphs, will be provided later.

However, more than a dozen defiant councils are still planning on taking legal action against the Government despite the Home Office winning an appeal against the closure of the asylum seeker hotel.

Labour-run councils, such as Wirral, Stevenage, Tamworth and Rushmoor are among those continuing to storm ahead with plans to launch legal bids against the government. 

Conservative-run Broxbourne Council insisted they would go ahead with plans to challenge the Delta Hotel in Cheshunt, with leader Corina Gander telling Times Radio she ‘Absolutely [was] not’ deterred by the recent hearing. 

‘The route that we’re going down is planning enforcement. So we’ve issued this week a planning contravention notice, which will give us enough evidence to prove that the hotel is not a hotel, it is effectively a hostel,’ she said. 

Elsewhere in Spelthorne, the local authority said there was ‘no change’ in their plans to launch a legal bid after the use of Stanwell Hotel was changed from housing families and women to only single males. 

On Thursday, an emergency meeting will take place to discuss legal action on the planning grounds. 

Following this week’s Court of Appeal ruling, Wirral council said it would take into account particulars regarding Epping before making a decision. 

The Labour-run local authority previously said it was ‘considering all options available’ to ensure hotels or any other properties in the local authority were being used lawfully. 

Stevenage Borough Council, also run by Labour, said it was probing reported breaches of planning control linked to the Novotel Hotel in Hertfordshire.

Reform UK council, West Northamptonshire and Staffordshire, are also among those weighing up legal bids against asylum accommodation.  

Earlier, Epping Forest District Council said it was ‘deeply disappointing’ by the outcome of today’s hearing, while issuing a stark warning to the Home Office that ‘the battle is not over’. 

‘This is not the end of the matter. While the Court of Appeal has lifted the temporary injunction, the case for the final injunction is still to be heard. Our battle on behalf of our residents will continue. 

‘A few weeks from now we will be back in court where we trust the strength of our case will still prevail.’