LORD JUSTICE VOS
Lord Justice Vos told Farid El Diwany in Court 71 on 27 June 2023 that there was: "NO (Islamophobic) bias from Lord Justice Popplewell" when Popplewell refused in Farid El Diwany's recent applications to reopen, to condemn, when specifically requested to do so, him being told by Norwegians to 'Go f*uck Allah, the Camel' and told that 'the prophet Muhammad was a confused paedophile' and told that his 'semen is only fit for a pig' and told to 'lick the arseholes of pigs clean' and told: 'Going to f*ck your mother, she like white man'.
Vos LJ regarded Mr El Diwany's request to Popplewell LJ to condemn said comments and reopen his claim was "totally without merit".
These senior judges need to retire. They have not the slightest idea of how to cope with covert Islamophobia or justified criticism of the out-of-touch members of the judiciary.
A cover-up.
Former Lawyer's Anti-Muslim Bias Claims Dismissed
Law360, London (July 26, 2023, 7:14 PM BST) -- An appeals court declined a former lawyer's request to be restored to the solicitors' rolls Wednesday after being struck off for failing to disclose harassment convictions, rejecting his accusations of bias and Islamophobia against several senior judges.
The Court of Appeal rejected Farid El Diwany's attempt to overturn an order by High Court Judge Pushpinder Saini that upheld the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision to strike him off because he concealed two harassment convictions against an ex-girlfriend in Norway.
Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos, leading the three-person panel, noted El Diwany contends the convictions were the result of trying to set the record straight after being the subject of a number of Islamophobic articles in the Norwegian press. As the result of creating a website containing accusations against his ex-girlfriend, El Diwany received a number of emails described by Judge Saini as "vile, shocking and despicable examples of anti-Muslim and racist abuse," the panel said.
"We entirely agree with [Judge Saini's] comments about the articles and the hate emails," the justice said. "It does not, however, follow that the continued actions of Mr. El Diwany in this jurisdiction in connection with them are acceptable."
"They are not," he continued.
In reaching its conclusion, the panel said Judge Saini took full account of the nature of the provocation against the former lawyer and was not required to read all the articles in question — something El Diwany was relying on to overturn that decision. But that provocation did not excuse El Diwany's actions, which could have led to harassment prosecution in the English courts as well, the panel said.
"As Mr. El Diwany should know, as a former solicitor, it makes no difference whether Mr. El Diwany did or did not intend to break the law," the justice said.
The panel also rejected El Diwany's attempt to overturn a 2011 High Court decision dismissing a defamation claim he brought against Norwegian parties, including a reporter, a police officer and the country's ministry of justice. The panel called El Diwany's challenges to the impartiality of Court of Appeal Justice Andrew Popplewell, who refused him permission to revive his defamation claims, "wholly inappropriate."
The panel said Justice Popplewell was not required to explicitly condemn the Islamophobic emails — as El Diwany contended — when deciding whether to give him permission to appeal. The panel said El Diwany appears to allege Islamophobia against any judge who "does not go out of their way actively to condemn abuse against him."
The panel said the role of judges is to decide the issues before them, not to make any comment about religious abuse or other inappropriate behavior unless it's part of their reasoning for the decision. Some, like Judge Saini, may choose to do so, and that is entirely appropriate, according to the judgment.
"But judges cannot be criticized for not doing so where it is not required to perform their role, still less should they be subject to entirely unjustified allegations of racism, religious hatred or of holding any other form of unacceptable view by reason only of their failure to do so," Justice Vos said.
The judgment noted accusations and legal complaints made by El Diwany against a number of senior judges, barristers and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The panel imposed a three-year general civil restraint order against him, noting he kept issuing claims and applications that are "totally without merit."
El Diwany said he "rejected entirely" the decision of the court, maintaining he knew he'd lost in June's hearing when the master of the rolls said there was no Islamophobic bias in Justice Popplewell's refusing to condemn "vile" abuse he had received.
"I am a victim of vile, Islamophobic, sexualized abuse from Norway minimized and condoned by the SRA, SDT and the judiciary," El Diwany said. "This is definitely not the end of the matter."
The SRA has declined to comment.
El Diwany had been practicing as a solicitor at London law firm Gawor & Co. for two years when he was fired after informing his employer in 2017 that he had criminal convictions in Norway for harassment; he had failed to disclose this at his job interview or since the start of his employment at the firm.
Gawor & Co. reported El Diwany's admission to the SRA, which ultimately got him struck off at the tribunal in December 2019.
El Diwany represented himself.
The SRA was represented by Benjamin Tankel of 39 Essex Chambers, who was instructed by Mark Rogers of Capsticks LLP.
The case was before Justices Geoffrey Vos, Julia Macur and Sarah Falk.
The case is El Diwany v. Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd., case number CA-2021-000980, in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
By Sophia Dourou
27 July 2023
Law360
CA issues general civil restraint order against struck-off solicitor
The Court of Appeal has imposed a three-year general civil restraint order (GCRO) on a struck-off solicitor who has been issuing claims against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) among others.
The court said Farid El Diwany “persists in issuing claims and making applications that are totally without merit”, including three that were the subject of its ruling and a further nine in the past three years.
“Mr El Diwany will not take no for an answer and seeks repeatedly to re-open decisions that have become final,” said the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lady Justice Macur, and Lady Justice Falk in a joint ruling.
The events date back to 2001, when he was convicted in his absence in Norway, and fined the equivalent of about £900, for harassing a Norwegian woman, Ms H, over a period of years, a decision described by the court at the time as lenient.
Two years later, he was convicted again over faxes sent again to various people and organisations with highly personal information about Ms H and handed an eight-month suspended sentence.
He was struck off in December 2019, both for the criminal conviction and his failure to disclose it to the SRA. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that, while he had been provoked, his reaction had crossed the line, a decision upheld on appeal by Mr Justice Saini.
Mr El Diwany applied to be restored to the roll in August 2021. The SDT refused this in January last year and Murray J then rejected an appeal against this last November, also making an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) to stop him from bringing further litigation arising out of the disciplinary proceedings.
The latest applications sought to re-open the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant Mr El Diwany permission to appeal first against a 2011 decision by the then Mrs Justice Sharp dismissing a defamation claim against two Norwegians, and second against Saini J’s decision.
The court dismissed as totally without merit the ex-solicitor’s claims that judges dealing with previous applications have had actual or apparent bias against him.
Though they “entirely” agreed with Saini J’s comments that he had faced racist and anti-Muslim abuse in the Norwegian press and in emails, the judges said “it does not, however, follow that the continued actions of Mr El Diwany in this jurisdiction in connection with them are acceptable. They are not”.
The judges condemned him for subjecting judges, barristers, solicitors, regulators and their respective staff to “completely inappropriate and unfair criticism and abuse”.
They recorded that Mr El Diwany is already subject to three ECROs made by the High Court, relating to complaints about Sharp J and Popplewell LJ as well as the SDT decision.
“While a further ECRO would operate to restrain applications in this court as well as the courts below, we consider that it is necessary to go further and consider the imposition of a general civil restraint order in this case.”
The number of applications made in the last three years showed that an ECRO was not sufficient.
The court said: “Although all the proceedings that we have considered are connected in some way to Mr El Diwany’s actions in respect of Ms H, the articles and the convictions and his reaction to them, so they might in some sense be regarded as reflecting an ‘obsessive approach to a single topic’, they have ranged broadly…
“We are entirely satisfied that Mr El Diwany persists in issuing claims and making applications that are totally without merit.”
Mr El Diwany has the right to challenge the GCRO, which the court imposed for the maximum three years.
By Neil Rose
27 July 2023
LegalFutures
Original article HERE