فساد الإنقاذ: الكرنكي إذْْ تدعمه نقابة المحامين/اتحاد العمال/غرفة التجارة ب ¾ مليون$ ضد "العبدة

39. The first of these criticisms relates to alleged deception of the United Kingdom
authorities in relation to the circumstances in which Mende was permitted to enter this
country in 2000. In the visa application form and in a copy of the undertaking sent to
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 3rd March 2000 (recently disclosed by the
Home Office) it is quite clear that the basis upon which permission was being sought
for her entry was that she would work for Ali Bashir Gadalla at his residence (16
Tiverton Road, London NW10 3HL) and that he would be fully responsible for
Mende while she was in the United Kingdom. In their reply (at paragraph 4.8) in these
proceedings, the Claimants seek to finesse that indisputable fact by asserting that Mr
Gadalla offered merely “to take formal responsibility for [Mende] on her visit to the
UK while she would be living and working for the Claimants in their home”. That
was how the matter was put by the first Claimant in a witness statement prepared for
use in The Sunday Telegraph action (at paragraphs 27–28) and in the further
information of the reply in these proceedings, served on 21st April 2005.

40. The true intention was that Mende would come for the purpose of working for and
living with the Claimants at the address to which I have referred above. Thus, not
surprisingly, it is contended on the Defendants’ behalf for the purposes of the present
application that the Claimants deceived the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that
respect. There was no need for a false account to be given unless it was appreciated
that the first Claimant would not be permitted himself to bring another Sudanese
domestic servant into the country. It is asserted therefore by the Defendants, fairly and
squarely, that the first Claimant has abused diplomatic privilege “by means of a
deliberate deception of the UK authorities for personal advantage for himself and his
family”. What matters for present purposes is that, despite this very grave allegation,
not a whisper of an answer was offered on the Claimants’ behalf. That is a very telling
consideration when it comes to the exercise of the court’s discretion.

41. As I have noted above, Mr Mathieson has also taken the point that the lengths to
which the first Claimant was prepared to go, in order to obtain Mende’s services in his
house, tend to suggest in themselves that she was no ordinary paid servant. In the
present context, however, that is irrelevant. That is an argument for later. Yet, for the
purpose of exercising my discretion on the present application, the very serious
deception which appears to have been practised upon the authorities in this country
cannot be ignored. There has been no denial of the basic facts, no explanation and
certainly no apology.