CLICK IMAGE to buy the book

Lord Justice Bean: Islamophobia and the British judiciary By Frederick Wright

Greetings folks. Once again it is retired Lincoln's Inn Solicitor, Farid El Diwany here, on Thursday 30 November 2023. Continuing with another of my ‘Mad dogs and Englishmen’ lectures on various aspects of the English legal profession. Today I will be discussing my latest book called ‘Lord Justice Bean: Islamophobia and the British judiciary’, written, you will see, under my pen-name of Frederick Wright ... window-dressing, a disguise - in order to ingratiate myself with white England. People do take more notice when a traditional Englishman writes on a serious subject, especially the law. Lord Justice Bean's own religious faith, of course, regards the prophet Muhammad as a false prophet or an imposter. Always bear that in mind. Of course, by the time the mendacious Mr Bean delivered his three 2023 Court Orders, I had become, literally, the judiciary’s public enemy Number 1. Lord Justice Bean was now doing their dirty work for them. I stood up to those out-of-touch bunch of fools and my God, how they hated me for it. Far too many of them suffered from archaic, inbred, attitudes and views. They are infected by a herd mentality. When facing allegations of bias and Islamophobia the judiciary press their apartheid button and use their unimpeachable ‘case management’ argument to defeat any complaint to the Office for the Investigation of Judicial Complaints. We must be free to decide as we please as we are an independent judiciary. Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos ruled on 31 July 2023 that in Lady Justice Sharp and Lord Justice Popplewell refusing, when asked, to condemn me being told - thanks to the actions of my High Court opponent - to ‘Go fuck Allah, the Camel’ and that my ‘semen is only fit for a pig’ and that the ‘prophet Muhammad is a confused paedophile’ was not a sign of judicial bias against me, as the need for condemnation ‘did not fall to be decided’. It most certainly DID ‘fall to be decided’. Even if only on the grounds of common humanity, you bigot Sir Geoffrey Vos. Those insults were the very catalyst for my libel litigation. They were NOT peripheral to the main event.

New blood is definitely needed at the Royal Courts of Justice. That systemic religious apartheid or anti- Muslim bias is enforced by the likes of Mr Justice Sweeting, Mr Justice Jay, Mrs Justice May, Mrs Justice Farbey, Lord Justice Bean, Lord Justice Popplewell, Lady Justice Sharp, Lady Justice Falk, Lady Justice Macur and Sir Geoffrey Vos. Indeed, the November 2022 Manchester University Report [there you see it] ‘Racial Bias and the Bench’ co-authored by Keir Monteith K.C, alleged ‘institutional racism’ in the judiciary, which includes elements of Islamophobia. There is not one full-time black or Muslim judge sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice. Black and Muslim barristers say anecdotally that they would not feel comfortable as judges in the company of their overbearing white establishment brothers.

Lord Justice Bean was told by me and knew full well - in great detail - that all my problems began with my revengeful ex-girlfriend Heidi Schøne, a registered Norwegian mental patient, who was the ring- leader and protagonist in 12 years’ worth of far-right Muslim-hating Norwegian Press abuse of me in 22 front-page ‘Muslim Sex-terror’ articles from 1995-2011. Which Press abuse included a Bergens Tidende newspaper article on 24 May 1995 calling me ‘Muslim’ 19 times, followed 10 years later by the grotesque lie by a Norwegian Police Sergeant called Torill Sorte when telling 2 million readers of Dagbladet newspaper on 20 and 21 December 2005 that I had spent 2 years from 1992-1994 locked up in a mental hospital – put there by my own mother, moreover. Vile hate-emails from Norway followed, declared a hate-crime by the Essex Police and referred to Interpol Norway. This was the catalyst for my libel litigation in 2010 at the High Court in London. I had not spent 2 seconds in any mental hospital, let alone 2 years. I was the Port of London Authority’s Commercial Property Solicitor from 1989 to 1998 with NO two-year gap for incarceration in a psychiatric hospital, as my family doctor and the Port of London Authority confirmed. But in her 29 July 2011 judgment a truly dishonest and deceitful Mrs Justice Sharp deliberately ignored that perverted fabrication from Police Sergeant Torill Sorte and completely exonerated her, when ruling that Ms Sorte’s later repeated allegation inserted by a journalist on the world wide web of my being “clearly mentally unstable” - simply for calling Ms Sorte “a liar, cheat and abuser” for her ludicrous two-years incarceration in a mental hospital allegation – had previously been looked at and dismissed by the Norwegian Police Complaints Commission and therefore I was re-litigating decided issues. So-called Res judicata. The Norwegian Police Complaints Commission were furious that I had not taken down my whistleblowing Norwayuncovered.com website. They did not even ask Police Sergeant Torill Sorte why she called me “clearly mentally unstable” or ask her why she lied so preposterously about me having spent 2 years in a mental hospital. The Norwegian Police Complaints Commission decided that I was ‘clearly mentally unstable’ for a concocted reason of their own: they resented my website on Norway alleging that its contents and ‘other facts’ indicated I was “clearly mentally unstable” - without saying what it was on my website or what the ‘other facts’ were that proved I was ‘clearly mentally unstable’. Mrs Justice Sharp ruled that as the Norwegian Police had already dealt with the matter, I was now, and I repeat: ‘re-litigating decided issues’. Res judicata being the Latin term in legal parlance. Case dismissed. I was, or indeed had been, ‘clearly mentally unstable’ according to Mrs Justice Sharp. Not a word of censure came Torill Sorte’s way from that deceiver Mrs Justice Sharp, who knew full well that Police Sergeant Torill Sorte had lied big-time when telling the nation that I – labelled by the Norwegian Press as the ‘half-Arab Muslim man’ - had been locked up for 2 years in a mental hospital, by, of all people, my own mother. Lady Justice Sharp IS a cheat and a bigot. She even refused to condemn me being told by Norwegians to ‘Go fuck Allah, the Camel’ and told that the prophet Muhammad was a “confused paedophile” and asked if I “licked the arseholes of pigs clean before eating them” and much more besides in a similar vein – sent to me in emails by Norwegians who believed Police Sergeant Torill Sorte.

Lord Justice Bean knew all this background when adjudicating on my satellite litigation with Police Sergeant Torill Sorte and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. So did Lord Justice Popplewell who refused to condemn those same vile Islamophobic email insults and covered up for Mrs Justice Sharp when in 2023 he dismissed my appeal against Mrs Justice Sharp’s 2011 judgment, giving no substantiated reasons.

The remedy of Judicial Review – challenging at the Administrative Court the decisions of public bodies for being unintelligible or irrational or perverse – is open to severe manipulation and cover up by a judiciary very protective of fellow quasi-judicial decision makers, such as the Members sitting on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. As will shortly be seen in ample detail, I knew that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Panel who struck me off had cheated when ruling that my ex-girlfriend had told nothing to the Norwegian Press and therefore, I should be struck off for my ‘complete lack of insight’ for revealing her psychiatric and sexual history to the general public in Norway. As confirmed by Mr Justice Saini later, my ex-girlfriend had herself revealed everything to the Press – huge pictures on the front pages were there for all to see together with vast extracts of her quotes regarding my 13-16-23 years of sex-terror. Mr Justice Saini ruled that she was a liar. The SDT Panel had earlier omitted to rule on the the blindingly obvious: that my ex-girlfriend led the 12-year Norwegian Press Islamophobic hate campaign against me and everything printed in the Press HAD emanated from her. This decision of the SDT to totally exonerate Heidi Schøne was not just ‘mistaken’ or a ‘regrettable error’ - it was a deliberate piece of deceit and misconduct by the SDT panel. Tantamount to Islamophobic abuse. So, I complained to the SRA that the Members of the Panel by the name of John Colin Chesterton and Gerald Sydenham – who were practising Solicitors – had themselves brought the profession into disrepute by deliberately stating blatant untruths in their judgment and should therefore be investigated by the SRA. I was supported by Mr Justice Saini when ruling that their findings were an ‘error’ – which was a very polite way of putting it. The SRA rejected my request to make an example of Mr Chesterton. Ha! They wanted me struck off and so had a conflict of interest in being asked to discipline SDT panel Member John Colin Chesterton. I thought it was an irrational decision from the SRA not to agree to investigate Mr Chesterton. So, I appealed that decision by going to the Administrative Court where Mrs Justice Collins Rice was the judge. She listened carefully and understood my arguments, but instead of properly debating them with me at least on a very basic level, she gave none of her thinking away and played the usual trick that the judiciary do when trying to avoid discussing the nitty-gritty of the case before them – she reserved judgment. I would be told in a month or so’s time of her decision. When it came it was one totally protective of her fellow judge – as John Colin Chesterton was in his role when deciding the fate of a Solicitor. Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled that a Solicitor who was accused of deliberately falsifying the facts when sitting as a Member of a Solicitors Disciplinary tribunal Panel was sitting in a ‘quasi-Judicial capacity’ and therefore any decision he or she made – whether it was dishonest or not - could only be corrected by an appeal to the Administrative Court. Complaining to the Solicitors Regulation Authority was completely inappropriate, decided Mrs Justice Collins Rice. How convenient! My response to that was that when I did appeal to the Administrative Court, Mr Justice Saini’s role in the three hours that was allocated for my appeal hearing was not one conducive to dispensing punishment to a Member of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for serious misconduct. The Administrative Court’s sole function was only to review the collective decision of the SDT Panel that struck me off. There wasn’t the time as well to investigate whether John Colin Chesterton should be struck off himself for dishonesty. Surely Mrs Justice Collins-Rice realised this. My supreme efforts to bring greater accountability to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Members who could ruin the lives of a fellow Solicitor were declared by Mrs Justice Collins-Rice to be ‘totally without merit’. Costs were awarded against me, and not for the first time in one of several failed Judicial Review applications I brought.

The unforgiveable tricks judges had up their sleeves to protect the establishment on a Judicial Review application were many and varied. Another example being the judiciary’s arbitrary use of the three- month rule, being the time limit from the date of the ‘relevant decision’ by the public body within which one’s application to the Administrative Court must be made. Potential litigators are always urged by the Pre-action protocols detailed by the Ministry of Justice to avoid going to Court if at all possible and to try and settle a matter. When battling with a public body in my own disputes, I found in a couple of cases that the answer they provided me with was incomplete. They had misunderstood an essential point. So, I gave them the opportunity to fully appreciate my arguments and wrote back. When my opponent had properly grasped the issue, replied and still refused to settle, I then issued my claim at the Administrative Court. In three cases the judge told me that the date of the first decision of the public body was the time from which to measure the three-month time limit in which to issue one’s application. The subsequent decision - which evidenced the public body’s full understanding of the issues upon which their subsequent decision was predicated – was not the correct date for calculating the 3-month time limit ruled the judge. Out of time. Application dismissed.

In another Judicial Review application involving the bloody-minded Solicitors Regulation Authority's refusal to investigate Charles Russell Speechlys - on a Norway-related matter when acting for that bent copper in Police Sergeant Torill Sorte - I wrote to Mr Justice Jay asking him to at least give me “at least a clue” as to the actual reason for his rejection and dismissal of my claim. He had given no reasons whatsoever beyond saying my claim against the SRA involving the Islamophobia and misconduct of law firm Charles Russell Speechlys and one of their former Solicitors was ‘hopeless, late and unmeritorious’ and consequently “totally without merit”. I had no idea whatsoever why Mr Justice Jay decided this. He then replied in response to my request for “a clue” as to why exactly he thought my application was ‘hopeless, late and unmeritorious’ that he had “nothing more to add”. That was the reply of a cheat and piss-taker. Hence my book on him. Lord Justice Bean at the Court of Appeal ruled that “in the circumstances brevity from Mr Justice Jay was justifiable” and gave no more elucidation than Mr Justice Jay. The use of the word ‘brevity’ by Bean was the behaviour of a cheat too, given the information I had supplied him with. Indeed, ‘brevity’ was a misnomer as ‘brevity’ implied a minimum of intelligible reasoning which enabled me the understand why my application was ‘hopeless, late and unmeritorious’. Bean knew full well that Mr Justice Jay had provided no reasons at all for how he arrived at his three-word decision. My application was not late at all. It was wholly meritorious. Read the book, available on Amazon.

The remedy of Judicial Review needs urgent reform in crucial areas. It is a con at present.

Lord Justice Bean went out of his way to belittle my claim that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal were as Islamophobic towards me as Yorkshire County Cricket Club were towards ex-England cricketer Azim Rafik. Lord Justice Bean said it was ‘absurd’ of me to compare my case with the Azim Rafik case and portrayed me as a hothead who had no idea what I was talking about on the topic of Islamophobic behaviour. That was certainly not the view of Deputy Judge Hugh Mercer Q.C who in the same Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Injunction case at the High Court earlier declared that he had looked at the Azim Rafik case regarding the cricketer’s allegations that he had been Islamophobically abused by his club and teammates and thought that I may have a similar valid argument against the SDT. As a Muslim, to Lord Justice Bean, I was just another ignoramus who played the Islamophobia card out of spite and for no good reason at all. Mysteriously, Lord Justice Bean was given three of my various appeal applications to deal with – on one of them I appealed for a second time requesting specifically that due to his Islamophobic bias in two earlier cases he should not have been given the latest matter to deal with in the first place. That recusal request was studiously ignored by Lord Justice Bean himself, whose excuse was that because he had just seen Sir Geoffrey Vos’s Judgment which stated that I was ‘in the habit’ of accusing other judges of being Islamophobic, I was basically going to extremes and playing the Islamophobia card for no good reason and accordingly Bean ignored my request, refused to recuse himself and dismissed my application to bring Police Sergeant Torill Sorte back to London to face perjury charges for her wholly misleading and deceitful Witness Statements. I could never even cross-examine Police Sergeant Torill Sorte in 2011 as the Civil Procedure Rules did not allow an overseas litigant to be subpoenaed to attend trial.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal employed a Queen’s Counsel to rack up £103,000 in costs when obtaining their Injunction against me and got Mr Justice Sweeting to give me 8 months prison, suspended for 18 months, for calling the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ‘Islamophobic racist bigots’ in my email correspondence with them. Mr Justice Sweeting said this punishment was because I had breached that Injunction not to use ‘intemperate language unbefitting a Solicitor’. I was at a loss to understand why calling the SDT “Islamophobic-racist bigots” was ‘intemperate language’ and pointed out that I was no longer a Solicitor anyway. I thought that Mr Justice Sweeting was himself Islamophobic when ruling that my calling the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ‘Islamophobic racist bigots’ was ‘intemperate language’ worthy of a prison sentence. I appealed against the imposition of the Injunction obtained behind my back by the SDT and the related suspended prison sentence of course but my application was dismissed by Lord Justice Bean, for incoherent and unsubstantiated reasons. He was a typical Pharisee – as described in the Bible.

No wonder Manchester University in their November 2022 Report entitled ‘Racial Bias and the Bench’ led by Keir Monteith K.C accused the English judiciary of being ‘institutionally racist’, which includes elements of Islamophobia.

When Lord Justice Bean was simply Mr Justice Bean, he sat on the Court of Appeal’s three judge panel in 2006 regarding the appeal of Andrew Malkinson for the murder and rape of a woman in Manchester. The Appeal was refused and Malkinson spent another 17 years in prison for a crime that he did not in fact commit. To nationwide TV and Press publicity Malkinson was, in 2023, declared innocent by the Court of Appeal after the Criminal Cases Review Commission sought a re-hearing on the basis of a miscarriage of justice – he was nowhere near the scene of the crime. Vital DNA evidence had been overlooked by the 2006 Appeal Court. So, you see, Lord Justice Bean was not infallible. His decision along with the support of the other two Court of Appeal judges to send Malkinson back to prison was completely misguided. Mr Bean was a total incompetent in 2006 and again now with me he is a complete Islamophobe and cheat. He should retire as soon as possible.

Why did I accuse the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal of being ‘Islamophobic-racist bigots’? It started when I saw just how temperamentally and objectively unsuited the 2019 Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal I stood before were, when failing to properly understand and adjudicate on matters of unprecedented Norwegian Islamophobia following the discovery by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of my two so- called harassment convictions involving my ex-girlfriend in Norway. The SRA then charged me with bringing the profession into disrepute. I had made the Norwegian Press 22 times in front-page articles from 1995-2011 for being an ‘insane Muslim Sex-terrorist’. In one 1995 newspaper article I was called ‘Muslim’ 19 times, in connection with my alleged insanity and severe erotic paranoia. The labelling of me in the Norwegian Press as the ‘insane Muslim’ continued for a decade, coupled with descriptions of me tantamount to being a dangerous psychopath. All the information printed by the Press came from my ex-girlfriend, Heidi Schøne, who was herself, ironically, a registered mental patient and was wildly promiscuous. A porn star in all but name. It was later declared by Mr Justice Saini that her stories in the Norwegian Press were a pack lies – ‘far from the truth and sold for financial gain’ declared the judge.

So, I thought I had every right to issue denials and correctives myself to the Norwegian public for those fantastical fabrications related by my ex-girlfriend to 3 million readers of the Norwegian Press articles. My correctives were sent by fax to the general public in Norway as well as, five years later, being put on my Norwayuncovered.com website. It was wholly obvious from the number of times I was called ‘Muslim’ that the only reason I made the Norwegian Press was because I was a Muslim. It was Nazi- like abuse similar to that received by Jews in 1930’s Germany. My two harassment convictions were for revealing personal information on my ex-girlfriend. That was a joke – I was doing no different from the Sun and the Daily Mail did every day of the week in the U.K. More to the point, I believe the real reason the Norwegian Police prosecuted me and wanted my website removed was because of my fierce criticism of Police Sergeant Torill Sorte when she perjured herself in civil court proceedings in 2001 and 2002 where she was a witness in my libel claim against my ex-girlfriend. The Norwegian authorities and Norwegian Press were furious that I had managed to get my story out on such a large scale to so many people in Norway, making their far-right Press and my ex-girlfriend and Police Sergeant Torill Sorte look like the total liars they in fact were. Norwegian pride was severely hurt and the nation felt humiliated. The result was another 9 years’ worth of front-page stories on ‘Muslim sex- terror’.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal were so biased that they struck me off when it was I who was the real victim - of unprecedented Muslim-hating abuse from Norway, as was also acknowledged later by Mr Justice Saini. The SDT were cheats and liars themselves: ruling that as my ex-girlfriend told ‘nothing’ to the Press I had ‘crossed the line’ and exhibited a ‘total lack of insight’ when revealing in my own correctives to the Norwegian public my ex-girlfriend’s psychiatric and sexual history and - so decided the SDT - I deserved to be struck off. Again, Mr Justice Saini, when reviewing the SDT decision at the Administrative Court, ruled that the SDT were in ‘error’ on this point as it was plain that all the Norwegian Press information had emanated from my ex-girlfriend who had huge pictures of herself printed on the front-pages and was extensively quoted therein. The very crafty SDT told me they “could not look behind the convictions”. They refused to read a single one of the 22 Norwegian Press articles on me, as I did not have the technical expertise to upload them on to the SDT Caselines Portal. I told the Panel to read the articles from my website. They refused. They showed an appalling lack of appreciation of just how vile Norwegian state-sponsored Islamophobia was. I had to cough up £25,000 in costs to the SRA.

When I quickly applied to be readmitted to the Roll of Solicitors, I was turned down by another Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal who also refused to condemn me being told by Norwegians to ‘Go fuck Allah, the Camel’ and told that the Prophet Muhammad was ‘a confused paedophile’ etc. etc., when I was explaining the background for my two harassment convictions which got me struck off in the first place. I thought it was totally unnatural and cruel for all three members of that second Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal not to condemn that filth or even express sympathy for the 25 years of living hell the Norwegians had put me through. Two Members of that 2021 Tribunal refused to even speak to me for the entire duration of that 3-hour hearing. Neither did they have the decency to reply when I asked them: “Why can't you answer my questions?”. They just looked at me in total silence. What were they there for? I was refused re-admission to the Roll for not waiting the usual 6 years before applying to be re-admitted. I had to stump up another £15,000 in costs to the SRA. With my satellite litigation against the SRA also, surprise, surprise being condemned as ‘without merit’ by a judiciary wholly intent on protecting the organisation from attack and criticism, my costs liability rose in total to over £50,000. The vast majority of Solicitors despise the Solicitors Regulation Authority and want wholesale reform, even abolition of the organisation. Listen to some of the comments made by Solicitors to the Law Gazette, after the legal journal reported on 21 November 2022 on the resignation of the SDT’s CEO Geraldine Newbold for mismanagement, forcing the SDT to find new premises, which situation was described by the hypocrites at the SDT as ‘an exciting opportunity’. The famous legal website ‘Roll on Friday’ had a Solicitor say this on 23 October 2023 regarding the collapse – due to fraud – of the large City of London based law firm Axiom Ince.

In the middle of all this I wrote to Geraldine Newbold who was the CEO of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and told her that I thought the SDT had an Islamophobia problem and why - and that it would be a good idea when a defendant Muslim Solicitor, who had external Islamophobia issues as the reason for his being charged with bringing the profession into disrepute, could have, say, one Member sitting on the Tribunal who was a Muslim - as a Muslim would be able to give proper and informed guidance to the other two Members on the Tribunal on the constituent elements of Islamophobia and Islamophobic abuse. All Geraldine Newbold did was to email me back to say the SDT is “not Islamophobic” and that her organisation is fully aware of their diversity obligations. I fundamentally disagreed and again asked, politely, for a meeting. Refused again. The legal Press and the lawyers acting for the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal HOWEVER wrote and submitted that I believed and argued that the mere fact that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal were not an ALL Muslim three-member panel when dealing with a Muslim like myself was evidence of Islamophobia. This was a complete misrepresentation, of course, and such reporting made me look like an idiot. It was also a form of Islamophobia for the legal Press and my opposing lawyers to lie like this and belittle me as a solicitor who was a Muslim. The Press and my opposing Solicitors and barristers at the SRA and SDT not once criticised the despicable Islamophobic behaviour of the State of Norway – who always back their Press to write things about Muslims, which if written in the U.K would be prosecuted here for incitement to religious hatred. Ignorant judges such as Mr Justice Bennathan ruled in favour of the SDT saying that Norway was a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. Not when it comes to allowing their Press to write their garbage on Muslims, they’re not. The Norwegian Human Rights Commission allowed Muslim-hater Hege Storhaug in 2015 to publish her book entitled ‘The Plague of Islam’. It sold 50,000 copies on its first run. All this, of course, after the Anders Breivik massacre.

I then called Mrs Newbold and her SDT organisation “Islamophobic racist bigots” and told her I will present myself at her office to force her to face the music of blatant SDT bigotry. It all kicked off after that particularly when I found out that Geraldine Newbold began paying vast sums to the SDT's external solicitors Doyle Clayton to obtain an Injunction against me to stop me attending on her office and to stop me calling her and the SDT “Islamophobic racist bigots”. In the light of this I thought it was impossible for me to receive a fair hearing at the forthcoming Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Geraldine Newbold ran up £103,000 legal costs using Queen’s Council to get an Injunction as she did not want to risk meeting me to discuss Islamophobia and objected to my continuing to call her and the SDT ‘Islamophobic racist bigots’. The Injunction granted behind my back. I was compared to hit man actor Liam Neeson in his film ‘Taken’ by the SDT’s barrister. Geraldine Newbold spouted the usual establishment bullshit that she felt intimidated, harassed and in fear for her safety. After she was forced to resign from the SDT for mismanagement she went to work as Secretary to the Guildford Diocese in Surrey. Yes indeed, as a Christian she will believe that the prophet Muhammad is a false prophet.

Talking of traditional Englishmen, on 1 November this year I came across a genuine one in the shape of barrister Hugh Miall of 14 Old Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn when I was about to leave the Inn via the side door onto Chancery Lane. Hugh had to let me out as I did not have a key. I knew him from his time in the Chambers of John McDonnell Q.C at 14 Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn which used the same entrance as the one to my old office at the same address. Hugh certainly is a very bright and confident chap, but even he had no way of knowing that he had been duped by the judiciary after he told me that a judgment, he’d recently read on my litigation didn’t cast me in a good light at all. Hugh was in a hurry and didn’t have the time to let me tell him that if it was the Sir Geoffrey Vos judgment of 31 July 2023 he was referring to - which supported Mrs Justice Sharp’s ruling of 2011 - that these cheats Victoria Sharp and Sir Geoffrey Vos purposely did not put in their respective judgments the essential fact or more precisely the essential iniquity that my libel claim against High Court opponent Police Sergeant Torill Sorte of the Norwegian Police Service relied on. Which was that Police Sergeant Torill Sorte had lied big time to 2 million readers of Norway’s Dagbladet newspaper in December 2005 when telling the nation, as previously stated, the ludicrous fabrication that I had spent two years in a mental hospital from 1992 to 1994, put there by my own mother. Without knowing of this crucial perversion, readers of the judgments of Sharp and Vos, like Hugh Miall, were on the receiving end of a shocking judicial exercise in cover-up, duplicity and deceit. How so very deliberately Mrs Justice Sharp and Sir Geoffrey Vos made damn sure that they did not put in their judgments that Police Sergeant Torill Sorte was a proven liar regarding her allegation that I had spent 1992 to 1994 in a psychiatric unit. Sir Geoffrey Vos told me on 27 June in Court 31 at the Royal Courts of Justice that he and his colleagues didn’t have the time - and I quote - “to unpick 28 years of Norwegian history” which was the period covering events in Norway. But Vos didn’t need to ‘unpick’ 28 years of Norwegian history at all, as I had ‘unpicked’ it myself in my Skeleton Argument to leave a very straightforward scenario. I could not possibly be ‘clearly mentally unstable’ as alleged by Police Sergeant Torill Sorte for calling her ‘a liar, cheat and abuser’ for her preposterous claim that I had spent two years locked up in a mental hospital. Police Sergeant Torill Sorte was an abject liar. As a result of the insincerity of Sir Geoffrey Vos and his colleagues on the bench Lady Justice Falk and Lady Justice Macur, I will now still be regarded by anyone reading Sharp’s 29 July 2011 judgment as being or having been ‘clearly mentally unstable’ as was specifically further alleged by Police Sergeant Torill Sorte after I called her a liar and cheat on social media. There wasn’t even any medical evidence brought in to Court to substantiate Ms Sorte’s claim. I hope Lady Justice Sharp rots in hell on Judgment Day along with her Court of Appeal colleagues. However, Sharp did get a measure of instant karma as did my High Court opponents: one week before she handed down her judgment the first defendant, the Ministry of Justice & Police, Norway had their building in Oslo blown up by Muslim-hater Anders Breivik’s van bomb, killing 8 people. My sworn enemy Verdens Gang newspaper who featured me on their front-page in banner headlines in 1995 and 1998 had their offices in the same building - which premises were wrecked too by Anders Breivik. The cheat of a lawyer who represented the Norwegian Ministry as well as Police Sergeant Torill Sorte, one by the name of Christian Reusch, and who instructed the Chambers of 5RB and Law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, was in the building on that fateful 22 July 2011 morning and was then off sick for the next 16 months, recovering from his injuries. Breivik, of course, then travelled on to Utøya island and methodically shot dead 69 attendees at the ruling Labour Party’s annual summer camp. Breivik blamed the Norwegian government for letting in too many Muslim immigrants so decided to punish the next generation of its leaders. The Norwegian Justice Minister, Knut Storberget, later resigned as did the Police Chief. Mass-murderer Anders Breivik certainly knew of me from that decade’s worth of front-page Press publicity on his favourite subject – the nasty Muslim. He named his offshore Antiguan company Brentwood Solutions Limited. I lived in Brentwood in Essex for 35 years. I guess that 22 July 2011 disaster meant the Norwegians were never going to be kicked when they were down, by the judiciary at the Royal Courts of Justice. I was so glad Mrs Justice Sharp’s big day when handing down her deceitful Islamophobic judgment was blighted by Mr Breivik. Sharp is pure poison. No wonder the famous author Tom Bower despised her after she tried to ruin him when practising as a barrister at 1 Brick Court. Victoria Sharp acted for and defended to the hilt that unrepentant crook Robert Maxwell, father of the pervert Ghislaine Maxwell, in his attempt to stop Tom Bower’s second book on Maxwell being published. She failed. She kept quiet too on the fact that her leader at one time, the King of Libel, George Carman Q.C was a wife-beater, drunk and inveterate gambler.

As for everybody reading in the legal press about my being struck off the Roll of Solicitors for two harassment convictions in Norway, which strike-off happened in 2019 - two years after I had retired from professional practice – the legal press conspicuously failed to mention the nature of the so-called ‘harassment’ – being my corrective summaries, made available to a few hundred members of the Norwegian public, of my ex-girlfriend Heidi Schøne’s life history AFTER she had told 3 million readers of the Norwegian Press in 9 front-page stories from 1995 to 2001 that I was an insane 13-year sex- terrorist, then an insane 16-year sex-terrorist who had threatened to kill her, her family and her neighbours, made 13 years of obscene phone calls, was suffering from severe erotic paranoia and from 1982 to 1998 had sent her 5,840 letters – which she said she had thrown away to ‘burn them out of her mind’. Even the Norwegian Police didn’t believe her. The catalyst for the story getting into the Norwegian Press was my shocking discovery from a Bergen lawyer I had instructed to undertake some investigations of the Bergen Police regarding Heidi Overaa, as she then was. My lawyer wrote to me on 28 February 1995 telling me that in 1986 Heidi Overaa had made a complaint to the Bergen Police that I had ‘attempted’ to rape her. I was the fourth person she had accused in the early 1980’s of sexual assault. Heidi Overaa told me herself that a Bergen shopkeeper had raped her; that a group of Greek men had attempted to rape her at knifepoint whilst she was on holiday in Rhodes – where she told me on the same holiday, she’d enjoyed sex on the beach with two different men. Additionally, she confided in me that her stepmother’s father was always asking her for sex and that she had to ‘do’ things to him. When I asked her what she had to ‘do’ to him, she replied “Don’t ask!” She later turned this into a sexual assault complaint too against her stepmother’s father. A man I had met and liked. I had not attempted to rape her at all. It was a spiteful fabrication. She went to the Bergen Police 16 months after I was supposed to have performed my ‘attempt’ but merely two weeks after I had written to her father alerting him to the fact that she was having unprotected sex with her on-off boyfriend who was injecting heroin, purchased in China whilst on holiday. The father showed his daughter Heidi my letter. Off she runs to the Police with her allegation that 16 months earlier I had attempted to rape her. As it turned out 10 years later, in the midst of her concocted sex-terror Press saga, she changed her story and handed in a Witness Statement to the Drammen Police saying I had in fact raped her. For years I tried to get hold of those conflicting ‘attempted rape’ and ‘actual rape’ Witness Statements. The Norwegian Police refused to send them to me as did her lawyer who told me during my civil ligation in 2003 in Norway that where there was a conflict of interest for a client Norwegian law allowed a document not to be disclosed. This is not the case in England, where disclosure of all documents, prejudicial or otherwise must be made to the other side in litigation. Within a week of receiving the news from my Bergen lawyer of that fabricated allegation of attempted rape, I wrote down on my own one-page information sheet Heidi Schøne’s life history, got it translated into Norwegian and posted it to a few of the addresses either side of where she lived and used to live. She had to be punished for her vile attempt to pervert the course of justice. Her sort of behaviour ruins lives and a message had to be sent out on behalf of men used in such a despicable way. One of my fact sheets was posted to someone who turned out to be a journalist. He called Heidi Schøne and in revenge she then persuaded the national and local Press to run fantastical stories that I was a long-term Muslim sex-psychopath. A year after those May 1995 Press stories were published, I decided, after not getting any retraction or apology from the newspapers to thoroughly punish Ms Schøne and the Press. Using the fax numbers from the Bergen, Drammen and Oslo phone directories which I had ordered from British Telecom I faxed that same Norwegian language one-page fact sheet and other newly made information sheets to hundreds of random members of the public in Bergen, Drammen and Oslo from 1996 to 1998. I told the truth about her highly promiscuous sex-life, including the fact that she’d had two abortions before I met her. I had no other option but to mention the vital fact that she herself was a registered mental patient at the Buskerud Psychiatric Hospital in Lier in 1988. She was diagnosed in 2003, in the midst of our civil litigation, by her psychiatrist Dr Petter Broch as having ‘an enduring personality disorder initiated in her adolescence’. The irate, Muslim-hating Norwegian Press continued to write about me for another decade. My fax campaign was, three years after the event, prosecuted as ‘harassment’. My first conviction in Norway was in 2001 in absentia – the Norwegian Police gave me 19 days’ notice of prosecution and I had no time to properly prepare my defence, had received no evidence anyway from the prosecutor in Norway and had other important matters to attend to in England in any case, so did not go. Moreover, I was told by the Norwegian lawyer I had appointed at the last minute that IF I did attend the Magistrate’s Court hearing in Norway my accuser Heidi Schøne would not turn up, as she was in no mood to face me. So, without being able to cross-examine her I could not test her evidence. No point going at all. I was convicted under Section 390(a) of the Norwegian Penal Code, in absentia and fined a small sum. The defence of ‘justified comment’ was not available under that section, making it inevitable that I would be convicted under what was in fact a quasi-strict liability section. It was a set-up.

After waiting 5 years for the Norwegian Press to apologise for their perversions, I had run out of patience and decided to set up a website called Norwayuncovered.com which I did in 2000, in order to reach a wider audience with my side of the story. When I went to Norway in 2003 to the Court of Appeal for my civil law suit against Heidi Schøne, the moment the hearing finished I was arrested at the door of the courtroom by the Norwegian Police - because of my website. After a sleepless night in the Drammen Police Station cells I was taken, exhausted, to the local Magistrate’s Court where the Public Prosecutor – a police officer by the name of Ingunn Hodne - told me without the presence of any lawyer to advise me, and in no uncertain terms, that either I confessed “freely and voluntarily” to harassment of Heidi Schøne for mentioning her life history on my website or else I would be going straight to prison. I countered this by telling her that after 3 million Norwegians over the previous nine years had read all about my recent history of alleged 13 and 16 years of severe sex-terror and mental illness, being labelled ‘Muslim’ throughout, on information supplied to the Press by Heidi Schøne, registered mental patient, I was fully entitled to put Heidi Schøne’s sexual and psychiatric history on my website. An argument rejected by Public Prosecutor Ingunn Hodne, who, ludicrously told me the two matters were not related. She insisted that if I wanted to go home to England that I “freely and voluntarily” admitted my guilt to harassment and promised the Magistrate to close down my website within a week of my return to the U.K. I was convinced I had no alternative but to succumb to this blatant illegal threat. I confessed under duress - certainly not freely or voluntarily and was released after paying a fine. If my website was ruled by the British Police to be illegal, then I would have deleted what was against the law, but not once in the 23 years that Norwayuncovered.com has been online have the British Police contacted me to say the website was illegal. When the Solicitors Regulation Authority found out about those two criminal convictions in 2016, they charged me with bringing the profession into disrepute, telling me they ‘could not look behind the convictions’ – the unlawful circumstances thrust upon me by the far-right Islamophobic Norwegian Press and the blackmail of the Public Prosecutor were of no interest to them or indeed the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal who struck me off. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal compounded the iniquity by ruling that Heidi Schøne had herself told nothing to the Press – that none of their information - and I quote - “had emanated” from Ms Schøne – and therefore by telling the Norwegian public about her own sexual and psychiatric history I had ‘crossed the line’ and shown ‘a complete lack of insight’ by revealing private information on her and taking my anger out on the wrong person. It was the Press who were solely to blame according to the SDT. This was a dirty trick from the SDT as they already knew full well that Heidi Schøne was pictured and quoted extensively in the Norwegian Press in huge front-page articles. I had made this abundantly clear at the SDT hearing and in my Witness Statements. All ignored by the SDT. I appealed to the Administrative Court. Three days before my hearing before Mr Justice Saini the Solicitors Regulation Authority offered me a re-hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This is usually a sign that they and the Tribunal got it wrong first time round and so are offering a solicitor a second chance to redeem himself. Often the SRA prosecution is soon withdrawn. But I had utmost faith that the judge at the forthcoming Administrative Court hearing would exonerate me and allow me to remain on the Roll - as the judge’s role at the Administrative Court for regulatory matters was NOT to rehear the whole case, but solely to review the decision the Tribunal had already made. So, I rejected the SRA’s offer of a rehearing before the SDT. Mr Justice Saini, in his judgment declared that the Tribunal’s ruling that none of the Press information had ‘emanated from Heidi Schøne’ to be ‘an error’ after he saw Heidi Schøne pictured and extensively quoted in the three 1995 newspaper stories. That finding should have been enough to permit me to remain on the Roll. Further, Mr Justice Saini ruled that Heidi Schøne’s stories were ‘far from the truth’ after reading her effusive love letters to me from the 1980’s, one even broaching the subject of marriage. The judge remarked that I had every right to voice my condemnation of Heidi Schøne’s two abortions – Sikhs such as Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini are totally against abortion, as are the Muslims and Jews of course and Christians too. Mr Justice Saini condemned as vile Islamophobic filth the emails sent to me from Norway as well as condemning the Norwegian Press for its stereotyping of Muslim men as sex predators on white western women. But he still decided that I should remain struck off the Roll of Solicitors as Heidi Schøne was ‘fragile’ and had led a ‘difficult life’. I told him at the High Court hearing 4 weeks earlier that Heidi Schøne was NOT fragile for the 11-year period from 1995-2006 that she led the Norway Press’s worst ever Islamophobic attack against an individual - myself. She’d got married in 1993 and was not leading a ‘difficult life’ at this time. The only time she’d led a ‘difficult life’ was for short spells in the 1980’s when she was recovering from the consequences of her very promiscuous sex life which included her two abortions by the time she was 18. At the hearing I told Mr Justice Saini to read in the next 4-week period - until he delivered his judgment - the remaining 19 Norwegian Press articles from 1998-2006 from my website Norwayuncovered.com to realise the full extent of Heidi Schøne’s determined efforts to pervert the course of justice with her ludicrous and fabricated allegations and accept that she was in no shape or form ‘fragile’ in the period of her libellous activity. In the 2005 Dagbladet article Ms Schøne alleged my 23 years of sex-terror included my threat (in writing) to kill her two-year old son. I have a tracker which monitors the people who look at my website Norwayuncovered.com. I discovered that Mr Justice Saini from his flat in the Camden catchment area looked at my Norwayuncovered.com website for only 2 minutes 3 seconds. Nowhere near enough time of course to read the professional translations to the 19 Norwegian Press translations which he had not yet read. He had cheated. The Court of Appeal did not mind, however. Mr Justice Saini’s cheating was excused by Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos on 31 July 2023 as ‘case management’ – if Mr Justice Saini decided not to look at the 19 Press articles he had not previously read, then that was entirely his free, unimpeachable choice. The fact that by not reading those 19 articles from 1998 to 2011 Mr Justice Saini could not see the determined attempt by Ms Schøne to pervert the course of justice and was therefore certainly not fragile, was of no concern to Sir Geoffrey Vos at the Court of Appeal.

I think I will get a lot of interest in my book, in any event, because the facts I present are also an exposé of the ... generally ... much-hated regulatory body for the Solicitors side of the profession – the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and its enforcer, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). Seriously despised organisations by most Solicitors who have a few years’ experience in practice under their belts. Lord Justice Bean: Islamophobia and the British judiciary is the follow-up to my earlier book entitled ‘The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: Dirty Tricks’ – also written under my pseudonym Frederick Wright. Two weeks ago, in the Law Gazette there was a follow-up piece on the November 2022 Manchester University Report ‘Racial Bias and the Bench’ – with Keir Monteith K.C of Garden Court Chambers in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as lead contributor. The Report, as I said, described the English judiciary as ‘institutionally racist’ - which includes aspects of Islamophobia. A year on and the Law Gazette reviewed the judiciary’s stance on the problem and invited readers to send their views in to the Report’s authors. As I have already mentioned there is not one black or Muslim full-time judge sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice. There are two Sikh judges as a sop to diversity and numerous Jewish judges, along with the usual coterie of Catholic and Anglican judges. Of course, none of these non-Muslim judges will regard the prophet Muhammad as anything other than an imposter and a false prophet. The Jewish judges will additionally regard Jesus Christ as a non-event charlatan, (hence the many centuries of anti-Semitism) but as outsiders on the inside, the Jewish judges have to be extremely circumspect to avoid upsetting the monarchy – an institution totally beholden to Jesus Christ. The judiciary are obliged, however, by their judicial conduct rules set out in a special book they are given, not to let their innate prejudices show under any circumstances.

Very rarely does a situation arise where hatred of Islam and Muslims is the central feature of the litigation before the judge. When it did in my libel case in 2011 before Mrs Justice Sharp, a Jewish judge whose multi-millionaire twin-brother was this year made to resign as chairman of the BBC over the Boris Johnson loan request controversy, I was determined to get redress when Victoria Sharp covered up for the totally bent Norwegian Police Sergeant Torill Sorte. Mrs Justice Sharp refused in court or in her judgment to condemn the vilest, sexualised, hate emails I received from Norway, thanks to Ms Sorte’s fabricated comments about me to 2 million readers in Norway’s Dagbladet newspaper, when I was told by Norwegians to “Go fuck Allah, the Camel” and told that the prophet Muhammad was a “confused paedophile” and told that my “semen was only fit for a pig” and told that “Muslims are the root of all evil” and told “Going to fuck your mother. She likes white man” and more besides with similar sentiments. They were all read out to Mrs Justice Sharp on 16 March 2011 by me. My then M.P Eric Pickles, now Lord Pickles, was so angry at Mrs Justice Sharp’s failure to condemn that filth that he wrote to Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling in 2014 asking for a meeting to discuss the urgent need for a change in the Judicial Conduct Rules to make it an offence of judicial misconduct for a judge not to condemn such blatant Islamophobic hate. Chris Grayling refused a meeting, and - no doubt on the advice of the bigoted senior civil servant in his ministry - advised Lord Pickles how vital it was for the government not to interfere with the ‘independence of the judiciary’ – who as part of their unimpeachable ‘case management’ must be free to do as they think fit and that all I could do was to seek independent legal advice and, if necessary, appeal. This was in spite of the existence of a letter written in 1994 by the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice advising that it may amount to misconduct if the behaviour of a judge upset a religious community. Those Norwegian emails sent to me in 2005 certainly would be seen as abhorrent to the Muslim community and any decent judge would be duty-bound to condemn them. Not for Sharp J to even have the basic humanity to condemn that filth was truly unbelievable. Perhaps she hated me, after I told her my grandfather fought for Adolf Hitler and died in Stalingrad. I did not know she was Jewish at the time. Those vile emails were central to my case in the sense that it was on receipt of them that I soon discovered why Norwegian readers of Dagbladet newspaper sent them to me. It was because they believed Police Sergeant Torill Sorte who was quoted in Dagbladet telling the nation in a front-page story entitled ’23 years of Sex-madman terror’ - when I was labelled as ‘the half-Arab Muslim’, with her allegation that I was locked up in a mental hospital for two years in 1992, with my ex-girlfriend Heidi Schøne, herself a registered mental patient, telling the country that I was a psychopath who had subjected her to 23 years of sex-terror and threatened to kill her two-year-old son and ‘in other countries such a threat would be severely punished’, she said. As I have said already, I had not spent two seconds in any mental hospital. Police Sergeant Torill Sorte was a proven liar. But Mrs Justice Sharp completely exonerated Torill Sorte making it abundantly clear in her judgment that Ms Sorte was correct to call me ‘clearly mentally unstable’ after I called her a ‘liar, cheat and abuser’ for telling 2 million readers the preposterous falsehood that I had spent two years as a sectioned mental patient from 1992-1994 and that when I came out, I carried on ‘worse than ever’ with my sex-terror harassment of ex-girlfriend Heidi Schøne. In my reprimanding Police Sergeant Torill Sorte in voicemail phone messages for her disgraceful libel in Dagbladet newspaper Mrs Justice Sharp declared that I was harassing the police officer. What a total shit Mrs Justice Sharp was ... and still is. Lord Pickles also wrote to the Essex Police and they declared the emails a hate-crime and referred them to Interpol Norway in 2013 – who did nothing as it was one of their own, Police Sergeant Torill Sorte, who caused them to be sent to me.

Mrs Justice Sharp’s failure to condemn those truly sick Muslim-hating emails is a fairly straight-forward example of Islamophobic behaviour from a judge. So, I did what Chris Grayling advised me to do and appealed in 2016. Again, the judge looking at my application - Lord Justice Jackson - did not condemn the emails. He refused permission to appeal giving no substantive reasons. I was still a ‘mentally ill Muslim’, relying on Mrs Justice Sharp’s fucked-in-the-head judgment. In subsequent applications for permission to appeal in 2021 and 2023 - with specific requests to condemn those hate-emails - twice Lord Justice Popplewell refused to condemn the hate-emails, declaring in his Order that he was ‘not Islamophobic’. Finally on 31 July 2023 Sir Geoffrey Vos issued a two-tiered Judgment – more like a warrant of public execution - when he and his fellow judges Lady Justice Falk and Lady Justice Macur declared, firstly, that it was right that I be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and secondly that the issue of Mrs Justice Sharp and Lord Justice Popplewell having to condemn the Norwegian hate-emails ‘did not fall to be decided’ and that Sharp’s judgment would not be reopened. This was total obfuscation, a ruse or sleight of hand from the Court of Appeal judges – solely intended to protect the reputation of Lady Justice Sharp as she now is. It was utter rubbish for Vos & Co to say that condemning that vile sexualised filth ‘did not fall to be decided’. The matter of condemning those disgusting email comments addressed to me certainly fell to be decided as they were the direct catalyst for my litigation. The Defendant in my libel action, Police Sergeant Torill Sorte, caused them to be sent to me following an interconnected set of libellous newspaper comments that I was suing on. The hate emails were an inextricable part of my litigation. Put simply – Vos, Macur and Falk were cheats and Islamophobic bigots. The sooner they retire the better.

My focus is on Judicial Islamophobia exemplified by the likes of Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Sharp, Lord Justice Popplewell, Lord Justice Warby, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Mr Justice Jay, Mr Justice Sweeting and Mrs Justice May. I have experienced their rulings with various degrees of disgust in my frequent satellite litigation in the U.K, relating to the vile behaviour of the Norwegian Press whose actions the Met Police told me would be prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred if repeated here by the British Press.

Members of the English judiciary fiercely protect each other’s rulings ... especially when the subject matter concerns those bodies or countries or individuals who are ‘our friends’ or are traditional bastions of the establishment. Whenever there was a covert piece of skulduggery by the white establishment elite the judiciary always managed to find a way to cover up or dismiss my application for permission to appeal. Islamophobia covers, for example, a blatant manifestation of undeserved prejudice or belittlement of a Muslim as an individual or Muslims as a group relating to their Muslim- ness or observance of Islam. The primary movers and shakers in the Islamophobia industry in the regulatory sector were the SRA and the SDT. The Met Police were on my side with regard to the blatant bigotry of Lord Justice Popplewell when he refused twice to condemn those emails. Lord Justice Popplewell told me in an Order in 2023 dismissing my application for permission to appeal the 2011 judgment of Mrs Justice Sharp that he was ‘not Islamophobic’. He’s deluded. Sir Geoffrey Vos in Court 31 at the Court of Appeal in the Royal Courts of Justice on 27 June 2023 told me that Lord Justice Popplewell was “not Islamophobically biased” for refusing to condemn that email filth after being asked by me to do so. That it was entirely up to Lord Justice Popplewell whether or not to condemn such language – a ruling which I told Lord Justice Vos was most certainly perverse. By any standard a refusal, when asked to condemn that sick language, is a definitive sign of bias and Islamophobia. The refusal by Sharp and Popplewell and others such as Mr Justice Jay and Lord Justice Bean to condemn that foul abuse humiliated and depressed me. I had to wait until 31 July 2023 to get the judgment of Sir Geoffrey Vos Master of the Rolls, Lady Justice Falk and Lady Justice Macur in my renewed appeal against the libel judgment of Mrs Justice Sharp in 2011. As previously stated, they ruled that the reason Mrs Justice Sharp was not at fault for refusing to condemn those very same comments read out to her by me on 16 March 2011 was that the refusal to condemn “did not fall to be decided”. That contrived reasoning was given, not by Mrs Justice Sharp at the time, but by three Appeal Court judges 12 years later when bending over backwards to protect the reputation of Victoria Sharp who was now Lady Justice Sharp President of the King’s Bench Division. I think my 2019 book on her - went some way to help ensure she was not awarded the vacancy of Lord Chief Justice on the retirement of Sir Ian Burnett this autumn, even though she was the favourite. Lady Justice Carr got the role even though she is nearly 10 years younger than Victoria Madeleine Sharp. Oh well, what goes around comes around, eh!

Enjoy the book. As well as the many others I have written. They are ground-breaking exposés on the abuse minorities still have to suffer at the hands of an institutionally racist and Islamophobic judiciary and their many friends in the Civil Service, SRA and SDT.

Farid El Diwany
30 November 2023

CLICK HERE to buy the BOOK.