Applicant: Waseem Malik
Respondent State: United Kingdom
State organs involved: Thames Valley Police (TVP), HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
Treaty framework: European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 3, 6, 8, 14)
Facts
On 30 June 2025, Slough Magistrates’ Court issued an order for the immediate return of four electronic devices seized from the Applicant (Log #489). TVP did not lodge any appeal or application to vary within the applicable time limit, which the Applicant understands to have expired on 7 July 2025. On 21 July 2025, the court rescinded this order on the basis of an alleged error in service (“misspelled email”), without prior effective notice to the Applicant and without any formal appeal having been pursued.
Alleged violation (Article 6)
The ex post facto rescission of a final, unappealed order at the request of the police undermined the principle of legal certainty and the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing. By reopening and nullifying a concluded matter on informal representations, the court acted outside its proper powers and denied the Applicant the benefit of a final judicial decision.
Prejudice
The Applicant remains deprived of devices containing vital medical and personal data, following the arbitrary invalidation of a lawfully granted remedy without a proper adversarial process.
Facts
The Applicant has a documented cardiac condition, with serious episodes recorded in the contemporaneous logs (e.g. Logs #140a, #393). On 15 April 2025, despite prior notice of his health status, TVP conducted a high‑intensity raid at his home and seized essential communication and health‑related devices (Log #25). At the same time, the Applicant had repeatedly reported a pattern of racially aggravated harassment by neighbours, including slurs such as “Paki” and “black bastard” and threats associated with weapons (Logs #2, #8, #20–21), which were often treated as “civil” matters or not pursued, while counter‑allegations against him were prioritised.
Alleged violations (Articles 3, 8, 14)
The seizure and prolonged retention of life‑critical communication/monitoring devices from a medically vulnerable person, combined with the failure to provide effective protection from racially motivated abuse, amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3) and a serious interference with private and family life (Article 8). The disparity between the robust enforcement directed at the Applicant and the inadequate response to his racial harassment complaints indicates discriminatory treatment on grounds of race or ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 taken together with Articles 3 and 8.
Prejudice
The Applicant suffered acute cardiac distress and ongoing psychological harm, in circumstances where the authorities refused or failed to secure his protection or safeguard his access to health‑related communication tools.