R v Saqub Asif Malik

R v Saqub Asif Malik

There was no abuse of process because the Bristol proceedings concerned a wider and separate conspiracy from the Birmingham proceedings, with significant differences in type of offence, dates, participants, and scope. The admission of the prior conviction was relevant and admissible, and there was no unfairness or abuse. No arguable grounds of appeal arose, and the extreme delay and applicant's absconding further militated against granting an extension of time.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Applicant: Saqub Asif Malik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction and for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
applications refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Admissibility of Evidence, Bad Character Evidence, Extension of Time, Conspiracy to Convert Criminal Property
Criminal Law Abuse of Process Admissibility of Evidence Bad Character Evidence Extension of Time Conspiracy to Convert Criminal Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Saqub Asif Malik

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Conviction and for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of the applicant in the Bristol proceedings constituted an abuse of process given prior proceedings in Birmingham
  2. 2 Whether the admission of the applicant's prior conviction for fraud in the Bristol proceedings was unfair and an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

There was no abuse of process because the Bristol proceedings concerned a wider and separate conspiracy from the Birmingham proceedings, with significant differences in type of offence, dates, participants, and scope. The admission of the prior conviction was relevant and admissible, and there was no unfairness or abuse. No arguable grounds of appeal arose, and the extreme delay and applicant's absconding further militated against granting an extension of time.

Court Disposition

applications refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal refused
  • Application for leave to appeal conviction refused