From: farid el d <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2019, 07:52
To: [email protected]
Subject: Message for David Hirst

Dear Mr Hirst,

I refer to the case of Farid El Diwany v Hansen, Sorte and the Ministry of Justice and the Police, Norway from 2011 which is detailed on 5RB's website. I was the Claimant of course.

Even at this stage, for the record, I am considering making a complaint to the Bar Council over your role in condoning, on behalf of your clients, those vile Islamophobic hate emails read out to Sharp J. in court. To remind you, those emails (such as 'Sick devil go fuck Allah the Camel') were sent to me on the same day that Torill Sorte was quoted, online, in Dagbladet newspaper on 20.12.2005 saying that my mother had me sectioned in a U.K psychiatric hospital for two years from 1992-1994 and that when I came out I was "worse than ever". On 21.12.2005 the same story about me being a 'sex terrorist' was the front page of the printed version in Dagbladet. And that I was "a Muslim". I had in fact never spent a second in any mental hospital: from 1989-1998 I was the commercial property solicitor at the Port of London Authority. Torill Sorte, the Police Sergeant, made the whole thing up. It was a complete fabrication. Heidi Schøne (the girl whose story made the front page regarding my so called 'harassment') was herself a registered mental patient whose psychiatrist, Dr Petter Broch, came to court in Norway in 2003 to say that she was on a 100% disability pension for mental illness and that she had "an enduring personality disorder initiated in her adolescence" and that several members of her family had abused her. I was prevented from cross-examining her because of her condition - yet solely on her uncorroborated word the court ruled all she alleged about me was true. When I complained to the judge that it was an essential feature of natural justice that a cross-examination be allowed he told me: "You are not in England now". Torill Sorte was not exercising her noble duty as a police officer in speaking to the press to better acquaint the public with the wheels of justice. Sorte lied big time as the writer of the article confirmed to me in a recorded conversation, after I told him I had never been a patient in a mental hospital. As confirmed in written evidence by my family doctor. Your clients are abusers. And you stood up for them and perpetuated the myth that I was "seriously mentally ill". Sharp J., with her religious background, would not have enjoyed me telling her that my grandfather was a German soldier killed in Stalingrad. She condoned the hate emails too. The Essex Police classed the emails as a hate crime and sent them off to Interpol via the N.C.A. My M.P, the Minister Eric Pickles, supported me and helped me considerably.

In the same week that Sharp J. handed down her judgment the Ministry of Justice and the Police, Norway had their entire building blown up by Anders Breivik's car bomb. Breivik also wrecked the offices of my sworn enemy Verdens Gang newspaper. The Ministry's lawyer, Christian Reusch who instructed you and Charles Russell was off sick for the next 16 months - he spoke to me once he was back at work. For 35 years I lived in Brentwood in Essex. Wherever did Breivik get the name of his fictitious offshore Antiguan company 'Brentwood Solutions Limited' from? He must have been reading all about me for 10 years in the Norwegian press as the 'Muslim man'. Did the likes of Sorte inspire Breivik towards his 22 July day of action?

As for your falsehood in your 'Comments' section on our court case that Google were responsible for the translation into English see the Affidavit (attached together with letter to Roy Hansen) put in to the Court of Appeal by my I.T expert Rick Kordowski. It was "fresh evidence" said Sir Richard Buxton for which permission to submit should have been seperately made. It was Roy Hansen himself who deliberately set up the 'Translate this page' link as so ably confirmed by Kordowski. Hansen later took the article down from his website. He knows full well that Torill Sorte is an abject liar. But the matter is not over yet with Sorte, I can promise you. She has no place in any Police Force.

There has been a major miscarriage of justice here. You yourself have contributed to this. You acted for Islamophobes and abusers. 'Sick devil, go fuck Allah the camel' eh? The senders of those emails believed Sorte that I was incarcerated by my mother.

You have made a big mistake. Will you now make amends by taking the case off your website? Thanks to 5RB for the rest of my life and long after I am dead all I will be known for is the perverted lie that I am 'seriously mentally ill'. Sorte's allegations were NOT previously litigated in Norway. One needs two doctors and proper psychiatric expert evidence to convict/rule someone as being mentally ill. This did not happen in Norway.

Can we also make a joint application to the Court of Appeal to remedy the injustice of Sharp J 's judgment? You are an officer of the court as am I. Your ultimate duty is to serve the interests of justice by preventing a clear perversion of justice.

If similar stories had been printed in the press about you Mr Hirst what would you have done? Accepted it and moved on? Never! Don't be so sure that one day you yourself will not also be dragged through the dirt by a spiteful woman.

My claims in court were not "spin" as you so eloquently put it to Sharp J.

I want this email of mine to be considered by your head of chambers. I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

The strain for my mother over Sorte's false allegations of "serious mental illness" and that she, my mother, "put" me in a mental hospital for two years and in seeing me suffer so much helped kill my mother. She died two years ago.

Regards,
Farid El Diwany
Solicitor

From: Andrew Love <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 5:03:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: David Hirst - NORWAY case 2011

Dear Mr El Diwany

Your communications with David Hirst and members of my clerking team have been passed to me.

I note from your email of 23 June 2019 to Mr Hirst that you have requested that your email be considered by his head of Chambers.

It is not clear to me whether you wish to make a formal complaint to Chambers about Mr Hirst’s conduct. If that is your intention, I would ask you to follow the procedure set out in Chambers’ Complaints Procedure, setting out in writing precisely the detail of your complaint and what you would like done about it. This should be addressed to one or other (or both) of the Joint Heads of Chambers and returned to me as the Senior Clerk to Chambers.
A copy of the Procedure and the Complaint Form which you will need to fill in can be found via links on this page of our website: https://www.5rb.com/contact-us/5rbs-complaints-procedure/.

Without wishing to pre-empt or pre-judge any complaint that you make, I hope you will understand that Chambers is unlikely to agree to remove or amend a case report from our website unless there is some clear and identified error or substantial unfairness in the report. In this context error or unfairness refers to the report of the judgment, not the judgment itself. The fact that a party is dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings, or with the contents of the judgment or any part of it, is not a sufficient reason for a report to be removed or amended. Thus, for example, the fact that the report repeats or summarises statements that appear in the judgment is unlikely to amount to a good ground of complaint.

I should also make it clear that I can see no basis upon which it could be appropriate for a barrister to join with his opponent in litigation to make an application to the Court of Appeal to overturn a judgment that his opponent was dissatisfied with – all the more so in circumstances where an attempt to appeal the judgment has already failed. Indeed, for a barrister to do so would likely be a serious breach of his professional and ethical obligations.

Finally, I understand that you have already made a complaint to the Bar Standards Board about Mr Hirst’s conduct in the case, and that this complaint was dismissed in November 2011. If and to the extent that a further complaint by you to these Chambers repeats and relies on matters that have already been dealt with by the Bar Standards Board, it is difficult to see how the complaints panel would reach a different view. In any event, you should be aware that Chambers may decline to investigate a complaint which is made more than 12 months after the act or omission complained about, without good reason for the delay.

Yours sincerely


Andrew Love, Senior Clerk to Chambers
Senior Clerk
5 Gray's Inn Square
London
WC1R 5AH

From: farid el d
Sent: Friday 19 July, 18:30
Subject: Re: David Hirst - NORWAY case 2011
To: Andrew Love

Noted with thanks. I will get back to you.
Regards,
Farid El Diwany

From: farid el d [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 19 July 2019 23:46
To: Andrew Love <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: David Hirst - NORWAY case 2011

Dear Mr Love,
You have not addressed most of my points and are rather defensive. What has David Hirst got to say?
I cannot fill in your formal complaints form with any degree of ease, so please consider my points of enquiry/complaint as follows.
1. I have never understood (or cannot remember) what became of the judgement in my favour in 2011 against Roy Hansen. He did not instruct you to set it aside. So does my judgement against him still stand?
2. You have received unimpeachable best evidence from my family doctor and my former employer that I had never been incarcerated at all, let alone for two years (1992-1994), as claimed by your client Torill Sorte, in a psychiatric hospital. The journalist Morten Øverbye of Dagbladet newspaper is on the record as calling his interviewee, Torill Sorte, a liar for this fabrication and that this assessment of her was "a no-brainer". Ergo Torill Sorte IS a "liar, cheat and abuser" as declared by me on Norwegian social media. So for Torill Sorte to then tell Eiker Bladet/Roy Hansen in 2006 that I was "clearly mentally unstable" for harassing her for no good reason as she had done "nothing wrong" only compounded her duplicity.
2. David Hirst has used methods last employed, I believe, in Stalinist Russia for requesting a ruling of mental illness on an obviously normal individual. Cunning, wishful thinking and ideological bigotry: the Norwegian Police Complaints officer, one Johan Martin Welhaven, declared that Torill Sorte's statement that I was 'clearly mentally unstable' was "neither defamatory nor negligent" due, he said, to the "contents of El Diwany's website and other facts". When I appealed and asked Welhaven "exactly" what on my website and which "other facts" indicated I was "clearly mentally unstable" he refused to say. Under the ECHR reasons for decisions must be given. Welhaven did not do this and so it is deceitful for David Hirst to rely on this non-judicial ruling as evidence of my alleged serious mental illness. There was no definitive independent medical evidence declaring me to be "clearly mentally unstable". Two doctors are required, not an insupportable opinion of a xenophobe and bigot who did NOT address my point as to Sorte's blatant lie as to my alleged two years in a mental hospital.
3. David Hirst was NOT given a copy of my 23.03.11 complaint to the Bar Standards Board (BSB). They refused to send it to him.
4. The Report of the BSB did not address the issues in my complaint. It was not worth the paper it was written on. The Legal Services Board declared in 2013 that the 'Bar Standards Board has failed to reach satisfactory standards in every area in which it operates'. The Daily Mail of 30.05.13 wrote: 'Barristers watchdog is condemned for its shoddy handling of complaints'.
5. Had I instructed David Hirst on this case I am in no doubt that he would have strenously argued on my behalf that it was totally unconscionable to declare anyone officially mentally ill on no medical evidence whatsoever. Do we need psychiatrists/doctors anymore? Not according to David Hirst when acting for Sorte and her Ministry.
6. Your client Torill Sorte was the catalyst for those vile emails read out in court in 2011. The emails came on the same consecutive days that the 2005 Dagbladet articles on my two years 'incarceration' was published. The senders of two or three of the emails indicated that they believed Torill Sorte's claim that my mother had me sectioned for two years. Does David Hirst still refuse to condemn the emails that the British police declared a hate crime and sent to Interpol?
7. Would David Hirst agree that Sharp J. is an Islamophobe by refusing to condemn the British Police ruled hate-crime of the sickest imaginable emails read out to her in court? Can I presume that Mr Hirst is not a Muslim? Or perhaps he now converted?
7. Does David Hirst (should that be Dr David Hirst?) nevertheless believe that I am "seriously mentally ill" and if so on what medical grounds? He argued strenuously for this before Sharp J. A judge who 5RB congratulated on their website when she was promoted to the Court of Appeal.
8. Does David Hirst accept that I was never incarcerated and that therefore his client Torill Sorte is an abject liar?
9. Has David Hirst ever been incarcerated/sectioned by his mother? Rumor has it....If so was he restrained in a straight-jacket?
10. Will David Hirst now accept Rick Kordowski's Witness Statement that Roy Hansen was in fact responsible for the 'Translate this page' link?
11. Does David Hirst agree that natural justice demands that a Claimant in principle be allowed to cross-examine a defendant in a court of law in Norway?

Regards,
Farid El Diwany

From: Andrew Love
Sent: Tuesday 23 July, 18:02
Subject: RE: David Hirst - NORWAY case 2011
To: farid el d

Dear Mr El Diwany,

As you requested, both Justin Rushbrooke and Desmond Browne have carefully considered the contents of your emails of 23 June and 19 July 2019. Whilst you have not submitted a formal written complaint, they have concluded that there is no substance to the matters which you raise.

(1) Alleged misconduct on the part of David Hirst:

Your complaint in 2019 is in substance the same as that you made to the Bar Standards Board, which was dismissed as long ago as 2011. You will recall that in its letter of 3 November 2011 the Board rejected your complaint that Mr Hirst had misled the Court. The Board accepted that what he said about the Norwegian authorities’ treatment of your allegations against Ms Sorte of libel and perjury were “an essential part of Mr Hirst’s clients’ case which he had a duty to put [emphasis added] and which he had a proper basis for putting.” Like the Board, Mr Rushbrooke and Mr Browne consider “there are no grounds of substance for suggesting that Mr Hirst knowingly or reckless[ly] misled the Court, as he correctly directed the Court to recorded Norwegian rulings”.

(2) Suggested joint application to the Court of Appeal:

Eight years after the Judgment you suggest “a joint application to the Court of Appeal to remedy the injustice of Sharp J’s judgment”. Mr Rushbrooke and Mr Browne can see no basis, procedural or substantive, for making such an application, let alone so late in the day. What is more, they gather that the judge’s ruling was the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal which was refused. The Court of Appeal would never re-open the matter.

(3) Suggested removal of case report (and Sharp J’s judgment) from the 5RB website:

5RB maintains a library of media-law case reports and accompanying judgments for the assistance of practitioners in the field. It is no ground for removing such a report or judgment that one of the parties disputes the Judge’s conclusions. In the absence of any clearly identified error or substantial unfairness in the report of the judgment, there is no ground for removing it. As for the judgment, the complete version is there to be read on the website, so it cannot be suggested that there has been any selectivity in the presentation of the same. The judgment includes the passage at paragraph 29 in which the Judge emphasises that the allegation of mental instability is one which you strongly deny. She also mentions the letter from your family doctor stating that he could find no evidence in your medical records that you had ever been committed as an inpatient at any psychiatric hospital. It is important to understand the nature of Mr Hirst’s submission which succeeded with the Judge, namely that your actions were an abuse of process. Mr Hirst was not (in your words) “perpetuating any myth” about your mental health. His submission did not address whether the statements made about you were true or not; his argument was simply that those statements had already been the subject of proceedings and determinations of the competent prosecuting authorities and courts in Norway, and hence the English action was an abuse. The Judge sets out the details of Mr Hirst’s submission at paragraphs 63 to 75 of her judgment. She makes no criticism of those submissions which led to her conclusion that your action against Ms Sorte must indeed be struck out. In reading the judgment, Mr Rushbrooke and Mr Browne have borne in mind the criticisms that you make of both the Judge and Mr Hirst in your two emails to them, but they have concluded there is no basis for challenging either the validity of the judgment or the propriety of Mr Hirst.

Purely as a gesture of goodwill, you will see that 5RB has modified its case report so as to remove any reference to the allegation of mental illness. Now that Mr Rushbrooke and Mr Browne have considered your complaint and 5RB has made the gesture stated, I am afraid that I must tell you that we are not prepared to enter into any further correspondence about this matter.

Yours sincerely,


Andrew Love
Senior Clerk
5 Gray's Inn Square
London
WC1R 5AH

From: farid el d [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 24 July 2019 08:37
To: Andrew Love <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: David Hirst - NORWAY case 2011

Dear Mr Love,

Your concession to me on your website case report is a step in the right direction.

However, let Des Browne and Justin Rushbrooke consider the following regarding David Hirst's unforgiveable attempt to convince the court that I was mentally ill - taken from the transcript of the 2011 hearing. David Hirst referred to the decision of the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs when saying: "It is dated 19 June 2007. One sees at page 127 that the man who decided it was the Deputy Director of the Bureau, a man called [Johan] Martin Welhaven ... The point I am making is that, if one turns to consideration of the Eiker Bladet article ... is that this has been considered through the prism of this invitation to prosecute which was made in 2007 ... I am suggesting that it is a decision made by a public authority acting with due process under Norwegian law. Of course on a seperate matter the court is free to form its own view as to whether the hallmarks of persistent and obsessive harassment conducted over the decade or more, including the present proceedings, do not carry the stigma at the very least of a mental obsession or conduct which reasonable persons would hold to be abnormal or highly unusual ... I will read you the fourth paragraph we rely on in relation to this submission: 'With respect to comments in Eiker Bladet that El Diwany is mentally unstable, we consider it neither punishable as negligence nor defamatory. We here refer to the contents of El Diwany's website and other facts of the case. It is not a particularly expansive statement but it is essentially a submission that I just made to you when one pays regard to the underlying facts of the case and Mr El Diwany's website". (No mention, of course, by soon to be Police Chief Mr Welhaven of Torill Sorte's filthy lie that my mother had me sectioned for two years! Welhaven was a dishonest cheat himself!).

Unforgiveable stuff from David Hirst: he was interpreting my continuous and sustained efforts to fight Norwegian bigotry as a sign of my 'mental illness'. Was I not allowed to say on my website/Norwegian social media that Torill Sorte was IN FACT "a liar, cheat and abuser" for telling the whole of Norway that my mother had me sectioned for two years in an asylum? Was I not allowed to deny the allegation in the press that I was a potential child killer? Was I not allowed to say that my opponent Heidi Schøne was a registered mental patient on a 100% disability pension for mental illness - according to her psychiatrist and that all her 'evidence' of '23 years of sex-terror' was solely her uncorroborated word? Was I not allowed to say that I had not written 400 obscene letters to Heidi Schøne - none of which in fact turned up? Was I not allowed to state Heidi Schøne's own lurid past history to give the true picture of my accuser? NO - not according to Norwegian law or to David Hirst. David Hirst is it seems exactly the same as George Carman Q.C: 'Georgeous George' the wife-beater defends the indefensible one day and condemns the indefensible the next day, depending on who is instructing him. I was in the year below George Carmen's girlfriend, Karen Phillips, at law school.

David Hirst also condoned the Ministry's Christian Reusch's perjured Witness Statements regarding my abuser Torill Sorte and her claim that in speaking to Defendant Roy Hansen she was doing her 'public duty' to correct my misinformation about her being a corrupt, lying police officer. What total deceit by ALL of the defendants and 5RB as their accomplices! A serious attempt to pervert the course of justice. He who pays the piper calls the tune!

Your barristers have not addressed many of the points made in my previous emails. Their silence can only be seen as an admission of guilt.

Regards,
Farid El Diwany

From: Andrew Love <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 2:58:45 PM
To: farid el d <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: David Hirst - NORWAY case 2011

Dear Mr El Diwany,

I’m afraid that as stated in my previous email, we are not prepared to enter into any further correspondence about this matter, and will not be answering any further emails.

Kind regards

Andrew
Senior Clerk

From: farid el d <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2019, 15:03
To: Andrew Love
Subject: Re: David Hirst - NORWAY case 2011

OK. I will leave it that then. 5RB are normally able to confront anyone with their magnificent wisdom and supreme argument. Not so on this occasion.

Regards,
Farid El Diwany