NOTICE OF MOTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA AS VOID AB INITIO AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

TO: The Registrar of Criminal Appeals / Crown Court Ltd

DATE: 14 October 2025

TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant, Waseem of the family Malik, a Litigant in Person, will move this Honourable Court for the following relief:

  1. A Declaration that the guilty plea entered at Reading Crown Court on 2 AUG 2024 is VOID AB INITIO.
  2. An Order vacating the said plea and quashing the consequent conviction.
  3. A Stay of all proceedings as an abuse of the process of the Court.
  4. Such further or other relief as the Court deems just.

THE GROUNDS FOR THIS MOTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

  1. THE PLEA WAS A NULLITY OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND DURESS
  2. The Appellant’s plea was not voluntary, intelligent, and unequivocal. It was extracted under extreme psychological duress and a procedural ambush, rendering it a legal nullity. See R v Turner [1970] 2 QB 321.
  3. The prosecution’s case was founded upon a fraudulent narrative, including falsified accounts and the deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence.
  4. “No court in this land will allow a PERSON to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.” – Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702, per Denning LJ.
  5. The maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no right of action arises from one's own fraud) bars the Crown from benefiting from the fraudulent foundation of this plea.
  6. THE CONVICTION RESTS UPON A VOID FOUNDATION
  7. A plea that is void ab initio cannot found a lawful conviction. It is, in law, as if no plea was ever entered.
  8. “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand.” – Macfoy v United Africa Co Ltd [1961] 3 All ER 1169 (PC).
  9. The entire proceeding is thus corrupted, as captured by the maxim fraus omnia corrumpit (fraud corrupts everything).

III. THE PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE A GROSS ABUSE OF PROCESS

  1. The systemic failures, weaponized safeguarding, and procedural malfeasance documented by the Appellant (over 350 logs of evidence) represent a gross abuse of state power.