• Date: 03 July 2025

  • Time: 09:22 AM BST

  • Incident Type: Submission of Supplementary Evidence & Amended Grounds to Administrative Court for Judicial Review.

  • Action Taken By: Myself (WASEEM BEY [email protected]).

  • Action Directed To: Administrative Court Office (General Office & Immediate).

  • Cc: [email protected].

  • Bcc: [email protected].

  • JR Case Reference: AC-2025-LON-001909

  • Subject: AC-2025-LON-001909 - The King (Malik) v Berkshire Magistrate Courts and other – Supplementary Evidence & Amended Grounds

  • Details of My Communication and Submission to the Court:

    • 1. Notification of New Evidence: Informed the court that on July 2, 2025, at Maidenhead Police Station, senior TVP officers violated the court's June 30, 2025 order by refusing to return my property (referencing Exhibit J.2 and Log #486). Stated this refusal is new evidence of systemic contempt and misfeasance.
    • 2. Procedural Basis: Treated the email as a "Notice of Change" under Practice Direction 54 §5.
    • 3. Requests to the Court:
      1. Requested an urgent case management hearing to admit the new evidence.
      2. Requested permission to file the attached documents:
        • Supplemental Witness Statement (Waseem Bey Malik).
        • Exhibit J.2 - Recorded Refusal bundle (Bodycam transcript & Order).
        • Amended Grounds of Challenge at §4(c) (to include breach of court order; failure of public body to comply with lawful directive).
    • 4. Draft Supplemental Witness Statement (Skeleton):
      1. Outlined key points: Rely on the June 30, 2025 order; On July 2, 2025, two officers refused to comply (Log #486, Exhibit J.2); Their refusal demonstrates ongoing unlawful default justifying an immediate mandatory injunction.
      2. Listed exhibits: J2/1 (Certified order), J2/2 (Bodycam screenshot & transcript), J2/3 (Log #486).
    • 5. Amended Grounds Excerpt:
      1. Proposed new ground 4(c): "By failing to obey its own Order of 30 June 2025, Thames Valley Police flagrantly disregard judicial authority, compounding misfeasance and justifying an interim mandamus." (Note: "its own Order" likely means the order of the Magistrates' Court).
    • 6. Interim Mandatory Order (Mandamus) Sought:
      1. Stated the relief section of my JR skeleton argument should now ask for: "An interim mandatory injunction compelling TVP to deliver the two seized mobile phones to the Applicant within 24 hours of order."
    • 7. Intention to Serve Respondents: Noted my intention to serve the Notice, Supplemental Statement, Amended Grounds, and draft Order on the Attorney General's Office (Govt Legal Dept), Home Office Legal, and TVP Legal.

  • Attachments Sent with Email (As listed in the email body and screenshots):

    • For the JR Amendment:

      1. Supplemental Witness Statement
      2. Exhibit J.2 (Bodycam transcript & Order)
      3. Amended Grounds (highlighting new paras)

    • For the Contempt Application (also attached):

      1. Proof of benefit n600 Universal_Credit_Statement_Waseem_Malik_May2025.pdf (for fee remission)

      2. Application Notice for Contempt of Court (CPR Part 81) Evidence bundel.pdf

      3. EX160_0625 FOR N600 Contempt application FILLED.pdf (Fee remission form for contempt app)

      4. N600_1024.pdf (The official N600 contempt application form)

  • My Perception of Purpose & Impact:

    • My purpose is to formally notify the Administrative Court of TVP's flagrant disregard for a court order (the June 30th order to return my phones) and to use this new, powerful evidence to strengthen my ongoing Judicial Review.
    • By submitting a Supplemental Witness Statement and Amended Grounds, I am seeking to have the court consider this new misconduct by TVP as part of my existing JR case.
    • Requesting an "Interim Mandatory Order (Mandamus)" is a significant escalation, asking the High Court to issue a direct, forceful order compelling TVP to return my phones within 24 hours, bypassing further delays.
    • Simultaneously attaching the documents for a separate Contempt of Court application (N600) puts both the Court and the defendants on notice that I am initiating proceedings to have the specific officers (and potentially TVP as an organization) held in contempt for their defiance of the June 30th order. This carries potential penalties for them, including fines or imprisonment.
    • This is a two-pronged attack: amending the JR to seek an urgent practical remedy (phone return), and initiating contempt proceedings to punish the past non-compliance.

  • Context/Link to Other Events: This is a direct legal response to the incident at Maidenhead Police Station on July 2, 2025 (Log #486), where TVP officers refused to comply with the Magistrates' Court order to return my property.

  • Evidence: Saved copy of the sent email and all listed attachments.