• Date: 11 July 2025
• Time: 12:01 PM BST
• Incident Type: Communication Received from Court – Property Return Order to be Reconsidered Due to Alleged Service Issues.
• From: TV-BerkshireMCEnq@justice.gov.uk ("Tenika" relaying directions from a legal adviser).
• To: Myself and Thames Valley Police Legal Enquiries.
• Referenced Case(s): 2500161562 / 2500137947.
• Details of Communication Received:
  • The court acknowledges that my application for property return was "initially granted in the absence of Thames Valley Police" on June 30, 2025, as TVP "appeared to have had proper notice of it."
  • However, the court states it has "since transpired that there may have been issues with the manner in which Mr. Malik's application was served," citing a potentially "incorrect email address" with a "misspelling."
  • New Hearing Scheduled:
    1. Purpose: To decide "whether the initial decision to grant the application should be re-considered."
    2. Date & Time: 21st July 2025 at 2pm.
    3. Location: Slough Magistrates' Court.
    4. Presiding Judge: The same District Judge who initially heard the application.
  • Court's Directives:
    1. "Any question of contempt of court etc will NOT be entertained." This is a direct attempt by the court to shield TVP from my contempt application.
    2. I am required to "re-send" my application to Legal.Enquiries@thamesvalley.police.uk before the hearing date to ensure proper service.
• My Perception of Purpose & Impact:
  • This is a formal notification that Thames Valley Police, after failing to attend the hearing and losing, has complained to the court about my service of the application, and the court is allowing the matter to be reheard.
  • Their entire justification rests on a single, flimsy excuse: a potential typo in an email address.
  • The court's instruction that they will not entertain any question of contempt is a massive red flag. It suggests a pre-emptive move to protect the police from the consequences of defying the original, valid court order of June 30th. This is evidence of potential institutional bias.
  • The burden is now on me to attend a new hearing and re-argue my case, all because of the defendant's failure to respond to the initial summons.

Gmail - UDATED Private Prosecution - East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court under case reference 432500137947_.pdf