What happened outside The Bell Hotel
A 52-year-old man, Phillip Curson from Upminster in east London, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of violent disorder following a protest outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Appearing at Chelmsford Crown Court, he confirmed his identity and entered a not guilty plea. He was granted conditional bail, with a case management hearing set for September 22.
The case stems from demonstrations that erupted after July 13, when an asylum seeker was charged with allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. Protests gathered pace outside the hotel, which houses asylum seekers, with the largest and most serious taking place on July 17.
Essex Police say that while the July 17 gathering began peacefully, it later broke down into scattered violence. Officers reported missiles thrown at police and property, leaving eight officers injured and several police vehicles damaged. The force’s investigation has led to 24 arrests so far, with 14 people charged—most in connection with the unrest on July 17.
Police described the disorder as targeted at both officers and property, and their charging decisions underline how seriously they view the events. In the weeks since, the focus has shifted to case-building and court proceedings, with detectives continuing to assess evidence and coordinate with prosecutors.
The incident has rattled a usually quiet corner of west Essex. Epping doesn’t often see major public order flare-ups. Residents and businesses near the High Street hotel have dealt with repeated demonstrations since mid-July, and some storefronts have upped security as a precaution during announced protests.
The court heard no detailed account of Curson’s alleged actions beyond the charge. That will come later, if the case proceeds to trial. For now, Curson remains on conditional bail, and the court’s next administrative hearing will shape what evidence is admitted, what issues are disputed, and how long a future trial might take.
What the law says and what happens next
Under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986, violent disorder applies when three or more people use or threaten unlawful violence, and their conduct would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their safety. It’s a serious offence, tried in the Crown Court, and on conviction can carry a sentence of up to five years in prison and/or a fine.
Prosecutors don’t need to prove that every person charged used violence themselves—only that they were part of a group acting in a way that met the legal test. That’s why, in cases like Epping, police often bring multiple charges arising from the same incident when group dynamics and crowd behavior are central to what happened.
Here’s the timeline, as set out by the authorities and court:
- July 13: An asylum seeker is charged with allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl, prompting public anger and calls for protests.
- Mid-July: Demonstrations begin outside The Bell Hotel, where asylum seekers are being accommodated.
- July 17: The largest protest starts peacefully but descends into violence, injuring eight officers and damaging police vehicles.
- Following weeks: Essex Police make 24 arrests, with 14 people now charged, most tied to the July 17 disorder.
- Now: Curson pleads not guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court and is granted conditional bail ahead of a September 22 case management hearing.
Legally, both the asylum seeker charged on July 13 and those charged over the protest are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The courts separate those matters: one is an alleged sexual offence against a child, the other concerns public order offences arising from the response to it.
Public order flashpoints around hotels used to house asylum seekers have become more frequent across the UK in recent years. In some towns, peaceful rallies have tipped into confrontations with police. The best-known example was Knowsley in Merseyside last year, where a demonstration outside a hotel turned violent and a police vehicle was set alight. That case prompted a wider debate about how forces prepare for quickly escalating crowd dynamics and how communities can protest without crossing into criminality.
In Epping, the policing on July 17 shifted from facilitating a protest to containing disorder. Officers formed cordons, moved to protect vehicles and property, and called in additional support as objects were thrown. By the end of the night, the casualty count for the force stood at eight injured officers, and several vehicles needed repair.
What comes next in court is mostly procedural but important. At a case management hearing, judges pin down what’s agreed and what’s disputed. Defence teams can challenge how the prosecution describes the crowd’s actions, whether individual defendants were part of the key moments, and how identification was made. Prosecutors set out the evidence they’ll rely on, typically including officer statements, scene photos, and any recordings. If a trial is listed, it will likely be several days, given multiple witnesses and the need to map the timeline of the unrest.
For the local community, two strands move in parallel: the criminal cases tied to public order and the separate case stemming from the alleged incident on July 13. Meanwhile, protests around asylum accommodation continue to test how towns balance free expression with public safety. Police forces say they will facilitate peaceful protest but will act when lines are crossed into violence and intimidation.
Essex Police’s charging tally—24 arrests, 14 charged—signals that the investigation is far from over. Detectives typically review hours of footage and seek public help to identify suspects in crowd scenes. More arrests could follow if further evidence surfaces. For now, Curson’s not guilty plea puts his case on a path toward a possible trial later this year or early next, depending on court listing.
Court listings can change, but as it stands, the next date is September 22 at Chelmsford Crown Court. That’s when lawyers will return to argue what should be in scope. The legal threshold for violent disorder is well established; the contested ground is usually what each person did within the crowd and whether the group’s conduct met the statutory test. The answers will come in court, not on the pavement outside The Bell Hotel.
