England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR. JUSTICE JACKSON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Tuesday, 8th October 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE MAY: This is an application for permission to appeal against a decision of Jackson J sitting in the Administrative court on 12 June 2002. Jackson J refused Dr. Hassib permission to apply for judicial review. He needs a short extension of time in which to make today's application, which I have no difficulty in granting. That is the extension of time.
2. Dr. Hassib has appeared before me this morning. He says in his written material that he has had the assistance of one or more other people. But he is here today on his own. The proposed respondents to Dr. Hassib's application for judicial review are the East London and City Mental Health NHS Trust. On 15 February 2002 their duty officer addressed a letter, which is in the papers, to Dr. Hassib, saying that following his recent request to see one of their workers an appointment had been made for him to meet with a duty officer on 22nd February 2002 at 4.30 in the afternoon at his home address. The letter said that if this appointment was inconvenient he should telephone and ask to speak to a duty officer. Dr. Hassib contends that he never made the request to which the letter referred. It appears that a specialist registrar in psychiatry and a social worker went to Dr Hassib's home to keep the appointment on 22nd February 2002. There is a note to this effect, stating that he was out and asking him to come and see them at their office at 100 Shepherdess Walk, London N1 on Monday, 25th February at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. It looks as if Dr. Hassib did not keep this suggested appointment. There is then another letter from the duty officer dated 14 March 2002, saying that an appointment had been arranged for him to see the specialist registrar on 21st March at midday at his home.
3. These are the facts and documents out of which the application for judicial review arises. Dr Hassib's judicial review claim form does not identify any particular decision of the respondents that he wishes to be judicially reviewed but refers to "ongoing failures". His grounds for judicial review are stated to be "violation of human rights of Dr Hassib, articles 1 to 50 of the ECHR 1950, Human Rights Act 1998." The remedies which his claim form seeks are expressed to be:

"Dr Hassib seeks just satisfaction under article 50 ECHR 1950.

1. The defendant be ordered to disclose the names of the criminal imposters to the Attorney-Generals of Great Britain, the United States, Israel and Dr Hassib.

2. The defendant be ordered to apologise to Dr Hassib in court.

3. The defendant be ordered to pay Dr Hassib the deterring sum of £299990 in exemplary and punitive damages."

4. The facts which the claim form says are relied on include that no innocent human being should be subjected to this degree of corporate misbehaviour. He sets outs details of the letters to which I have referred. He then says:

"Because of Dr. Hassib's status as a Hippocratic physician and a specialist in defence against Middle Eastern Chemobioterrorism the competent authority was informed. The authority advised judicial review and proceeded to hunt the criminals.

There is a very substantial reward for naming the true criminals to the British, American and Israeli Attorney-Generals.

Professor T Hansent Et al, Washington DC/USA, completed this form for Dr Hassib, the claimant."

5. Jackson J said that there were no possible grounds disclosed, either in the documents or in Dr Hassib's oral submissions to him, upon which he might succeed in a claim for judicial review against the Health Trust. He said, however, that it did seem, from what Dr. Hassib had said, that he had achieved his object because he had received no further letters from the Health Trust.
6. Dr Hassib's written grounds of appeal state that Jackson J's decision was clearly wrong. He says that a most dangerous criminal offence has been committed violating numerous articles of the European Convention of Human Rights. He says that there must exist an effective remedy and that merely saying that he has suffered no harm is not satisfactory. Where a crime has been committed there must be deterrent punishment for it. He says that an act of criminal impersonation was calculated to lead to loss of liberty and character assassination. It was malicious and evil and must not go unpunished. His grounds of appeal then proceed:

"The respondent and its lawyers have known the exact identity of the impersonators and have refused to disclose it to Dr Hassib and the British, American and Israeli Attorney-Generals. They have obstructed the due process of lawful punishment of the impersonators. They have left Dr Hassib vulnerable to further acts of crimes.

On those grounds the competent international authority has indicted the members of the board of management of the Trust and their 200 solicitors and has increased the amount of the total sum of punitive and exemplary damages for having become accessories to a most abominable criminal act where the victim is a Hippocratic physician and specialist in defence against bioterrorism.

The sovereign gave his solemn undertaking in 1945 to protect Hippocratic physicians and PPD specialists. His government and his judges have been bound by that undertaking. The defendants have been deprived of the right to life saving medicine."

7. Written submissions in support of the grounds of appeal continue in a similar vein as do the terms of additional applications and further evidence on which Dr. Hassib seeks to rely. Some of the further evidence is apparent on page 7B of the documents before the court, under the heading "Criminal Impersonation Combined With Mental Health Terror". There are 14 paragraphs of material, purportedly signed on 14 June 2002 by a Dr. H Aaalamani MD who is written to be a specialist in general adult psychiatry, all this arising out of what were obviously two utterly innocuous attempts by the Mental Health Trust to make a routine medical appointment.
8. Mr Hassib has submitted this morning that he now has the reasons why the three letters were sent. He tells me that they have been traced back to the General Medical Council. At the time he was assigned to the psychiatrist whose name appears on page 7B, the person whose name begins with tripple A, to protect his human rights. He is going to be enabled to crush the decisions of the General Medical Council against him and this explains why the three letters were written to him.
9. There is much in this which is strange and perhaps rather difficult to understand, but I have concluded without hesitation that Jackson J was entirely right to conclude that there were no possible grounds upon which an application for judicial review might succeed. This application for permission to appeal is refused.
Order: Application for permission to appeal refused.