• Date: 13 July 2025
• Time: 07:09 AM BST
• Incident Type: Urgent Judicial Review Application Submitted to High Court (Challenging Unlawful Re-Opening of Decided Matter).
• Action Taken By: Myself (WASEEM, as "Claimant :Waseem - Secured Party Creditor").
• Action Directed To: Administrative Court Office Immediates.
• Referenced Case: Judicial Review - Case AC-2025-LON-001909.
• Subject: URGENT JR: The king (application of Malik) v Berkshire Magistrate Courts and Other - Unlawful Re-Opening of Decided Matter
• Details of My Submission to the High Court:
  • Formally submitted an urgent application within my existing Judicial Review (AC-2025-LON-001909) to challenge the decision by Berkshire Magistrates' Court to re-open a final, decided matter.
  • Grounds for the Challenge:
    1. Finality Principle Violation: Argued the court's order of 30 June 2025 was final. Cited the key Supreme Court case R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal UKSC 28, asserting that Thames Valley Police's only lawful remedy was to appeal to a higher court, not to orchestrate a "covert reconsideration" at the same court.
    2. Procedural Impropriety: Alleged that Thames Valley Police contacted the court ex parte (without any notice to me) to arrange this new hearing, a fundamental breach of procedural fairness.
    3. Apparent Bias: Argued that having the same judge re-hear their own final decision breaches the principle against bias established in Porter v Magill UKHL 67.
  • Relief Requested from the High Court:
    1. An urgent Stay (a temporary halt) of the Magistrates' Court hearing scheduled for 21 July 2025, pending the outcome of the Judicial Review.
    2. An order for Thames Valley Police to pay indemnity costs for this abuse of process.
• My Perception of Purpose & Impact:
  • The purpose of this action is to use the power of the High Court to stop the Magistrates' Court from proceeding with what I believe is an unlawful and biased hearing.
  • I am pre-emptively striking their ambush. Instead of defending myself at their hearing on July 21st, I am attacking the very legitimacy of that hearing in a superior court.
  • By citing major Supreme Court and House of Lords precedents, I am demonstrating the seriousness and legal strength of my challenge.
  • This move puts both the Magistrates' Court and Thames Valley Police on the defensive. They will now have to justify their actions not to me, but to a High Court judge.