This is a statement of claim for perverting the course of justice; theft; and giving of false statement(s) to the police. In presenting his assertions herein, Claimant relies on the false statement(s) against him made by the Respondent; and other material evidence that prove the said allegations. Accordingly, Claimant intends to prove that: The Respondent perverted the course of justice; stole items from the Claimant; and made false statements to the police against Claimant, which action caused injustices to Claimant.


  1. The Claimant is Mohammed Aflaq Latif, an individual who is currently, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was is, a resident AT 20 Tyseley Lane, Tyseley, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
  • The Respondent herein is Fazia Khanum, the Claimant ex-wife. At all times mentioned in this complaint she was a resident of 54 Fulham Road, Sparkhill, Birmingham, B11 4QG, United Kingdom. She came to UK on marriage visa. After 17 years of marriage, the two of them have separated and the Divorce Proceedings are ongoing. It is the turn of events thereafter that have led to the filing of this Claim.


  1. Perverting the course of justice
  2. Respondent has on several instances misused the justice system by providing false information to the police. Respondent has committed the said conduct for a period spanning almost fifteen years now. Notably, the Defendant has never been proven guilty of the allegations. While some of the allegations herein are time-barred, they serve to show the existing and continuing pattern of Respondent’s conduct.
  • The first incidence happened in 2006 when the Respondent made allegations against Claimant that Claimant had committed assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Respondent, which led to Claimant’s arrest and detention for over twelve hours. The solicitor present informed Claimant that no further action would be taken against him.
  • A few years later, after Clamant had moved out of the matrimonial house, he was arrested again based on Respondent’s false allegations against him. He was interviewed and discharged after being told that no further action would be taken against him.
  • Again, Claimant was arrested and detained at the Kings Heath Police Station, after Claimant called the police’s phone number, which the police had left with him. The arrest was based on false allegations made by the Respondent against the Claimant. He was interviewed and discharged after being told that no further action would be taken against him.
  • On another occasion, Claimant and his brother were in the house together with the Respondent. A police officer knocked the door and Respondent claimed that Claimant had just hit her. The officer realizing no substantial claim, left without taking any action against Claimant.
  • In 2014, police got into Claimant’s house alleging they received allegations from you against Claimant. Respondent arrived and stated that the allegations were untrue, upon which the police told the Respondent not to waste their time.
  • In 2015, the police got into Claimant’s home and arrested him based on allegations of assault raised by the Respondent. He was detained for twelve hours and was released on conditional bail. Afterwards, Respondent dropped the charges against Claimant.   
  1. On December 16, 2016, the police got into Claimant’s house and arrested him on allegations from Respondent that Claimant had pushed Respondent’s sister and had kicked Respondent. Consequently, Claimant was detained at the Perry Barr Police Station for over twelve hours and was later released on conditional bail. He was charged to appear at the Birmingham Magistrate’s Court on January 17, 2017, but was committed to the Crown Court on the self-same day. The Crown Court referred the matter back to the Magistrate’s Court, and on April 2017, a hearing was done. In the hearing, Claimant presented testimony from a neighbor who testified that nothing had happened on the day the said acts were alleged. Besides, Claimant had recorded Respondent’s voice as she alleged that the allegations were not true. The Claimant’s Solicitor conferred with the prosecution, and the Court dismissed the case thereby.
  1. On October 7, 2017, the Respondent called the police. Consequently, the police called the Claimant on October 8, 2017 and warned the Claimant to stay away from Respondent. It is not clear what allegations the Respondent had made.
  1. On October 15, 2017, Claimant received an ex parte Non-Molestation Order based on assault allegations, which were made by Respondent. A further Order was made for twelve months, and was extended to February 2019. At this point, Respondent confirmed that the assault allegations were wrong and that she did not want to proceed with the Order.
  1. Around early 2018, Respondent sent numerous and continuous texts to Claimant. Claimant presented the texts to the police, who warned Respondent to stop texting Claimant. On September 5, 2018, the Respondent called the police alleging Claimant violated the Non-Molestation Order by following her. Claimant was taken to the Perry Bar Police Station, where Claimant revealed that at the place where Respondent claimed Claimant was following her, was a mosque, which Claimant attended regularly. Besides, Claimant’s father lived around the said area, and Claimant happened to be visiting his father around that time. Claimant was released and was informed that no further action would be taken against him.
  1. On September 10, 2018, Claimant was arrested and detained at the Woodlands Police Station on the allegations that he had violated the Non-Molestation Order. He was detained for half and hour and was released after the police could find no corroborative evidence apart from Respondent’s false allegations.
  1. On or about March 2020, at Perry Barr Police Station, Respondent confirmed she gave false information to the police against the Defendant. She testified that she gave the said information on December 2016, and used the said information to obtain the Non-Molestation Order in October 2017.
  • Theft
  1. On or about February 2020, Claimant’s son informed Claimant that his cabinet at the attic of his home at 54 Fulham Road was broken into. Claimant reported the matter to the police. He lost items worth £13,000, whose particulars are as follows:
  2. Gold bracelets/bangles valued at £3,500
  3. Gold necklaces valued at £4,400.
  4. Expensive watches valued at £800.
  5. Midland Housing receipts, certificates, bank books, our client’s late mother’s photo album and other important documents linked current Case Number WU18D02410.
  6. Black CK Jeans
  7. £2,000 cash
  8. Three Gold Chains valued at £800.
  1. On or about June 2021, a Consent Order was signed, in which the Respondent admitted that she removed items from Claimant’s metal cabinet and obtained log in credentials. She used the credentials to log in Claimant’s business bank accounts and obtained cash. The Respondent gave false statements about the theft of Claimant’s items. Respondent further submitted false defense witness in Counterclaim No. G5QZ16E1 in the Birmingham County Court.    

In support of this Statement of Claims, Claimant intends to rely on, and submit the following evidence for the Court’s perusal:

  1. Consent Order.pdf – 20th September 2021
  2. Transcript – 21st January 2020
  3. Letter of claim – 27th February 2020
  4. Response Email 5th Sept 2021
  5. Police Log Number: 1194 29/11/18
  6. Claim Number:G5QZ16E
  7. Crime 20BE/54681P/20
  8. Crime 20BE/55976Z/20
  9. Barclays Bank Fraud Reference Number: NPV3002020505346
  10. Halifax Fraud Reference Number F1322730
  11. Action Fraud Reference Number: NFRC200303566637
  12. Subject Access Request (Civil Disclosure Unit)
  13. Crime 20BE/248717Z/16
  14. Non-Molestation Order
  15. Photo of the Metal Cabinet.

THEREFORE, Claimant prays this Court holds against Respondent for:

  1. Compensatory damages for the harm suffered by Claimant;
  2. Punitive damages;
  3. Orders the production into the Court of
  4. CPS Report from West Midland Police for Crime 20BE/55976Z/20 PERVERT COURSE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE; and
  6. Interest according to the law;
  7. Costs of suit; and
  8. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.

WHEREFORE, Claimant respectfully requests this Court to grant the reliefs sought.

Dated: ____________

Respectfully Submitted,

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )