Case Ref: AC‑2025‑LON‑001909 Applicant: :Waseem: Malik Respondents: Berkshire Magistrates’ Court and Thames Valley Police

Grounds in Brief

  1. Procedural Error – The refusal failed to engage with the substantive grounds raised in **RCJ‑67a (Affidavit of Rebuttal), **RCJ‑76 (The Invisible Throne), and **Log #925 (Fee Remission Approval)**. This is a fundamental error of process.
  2. Jurisdictional Concealment – The Respondents, through Kennedys Law (David Drewe), operate under offshore/tax haven affiliations (**Log #924 – The Tax Haven Trap**). This concealment of jurisdiction was ignored.
  3. Bail Condition Challenge – The requirement to surrender is itself a bail condition under s.3 Bail Act 1976. Once “all conditions” were lifted on 19 May 2025, no lawful requirement remained. Forcing surrender on 2 July was unlawful and contrary to Article 5 ECHR.
  4. Not Academic – The issue is not moot. I was compelled under threat of sanction to surrender unlawfully. This is a live issue, capable of repetition yet evading review (R (Salem) v SSHD).
  5. Seizure and Retention of Phones – The 30 June order was perfected. The 21 July set‑aside was ultra vires. Retention of my phones breaches Article 8 ECHR, especially given my medical reliance.
  6. Collusion and Bad Faith – Evidence includes mis‑typed service address, contradictory NFA letter, and refusal to return property despite order. These are not bare allegations but circumstantial evidence requiring oral scrutiny.
  7. Pre‑Action Disclosure – Disclosure (e.g. body‑cam footage) is directly relevant to lawfulness and proportionality. Refusal frustrates Article 6 ECHR (access to justice).
  8. Medical Evidence – The court unfairly sided with David Drewe of Kennedys Law, despite his bad faith and offshore entanglements. Preferring his assertions over documentary medical evidence is procedurally unfair and breaches Articles 6 and 8 ECHR.
  9. Public Interest – The claim concerns systemic abuse of public procurement, institutional harassment, and breach of fiduciary duty by Thames Valley Police and its legal agents. This is a matter of significant public importance.
  10. Access to Justice – Fee remission has been granted (HWF‑ZHM‑OJ6 / HWF‑ZAM‑SSD), removing financial obstruction and confirming procedural compliance.

Relief Sought