Alongside my ongoing civil court proceedings, I have always intended to apply for judicial review.
For anyone unfamiliar, judicial review is the legal mechanism that allows a court to scrutinise the lawfulness of a decision or action taken by a public body. It is one of the most powerful constitutional safeguards in the UK, designed to protect individuals when state authorities misuse their powers or violate fundamental rights.
Judicial review can be brought on several recognised grounds:
(1) Illegality — where a public authority acted outside its powers, applied a rigid policy, ignored relevant considerations, or relied on irrelevant ones.
(2) Irrationality — where the decision is so unreasonable that no lawful public body could have made it (known as Wednesbury unreasonableness).
(3) Procedural unfairness — where a public authority failed to follow fair, impartial decision-making processes.
A judicial review can also challenge a decision that breaches human rights, particularly where a public authority fails to respect or protect the rights guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Source: https://www.bihr.org.uk/get-informed/legislation-explainers/what-is-judicial-review
In my case, this is critical. The ongoing abuses I have experienced — including years of covert surveillance, dissemination of intimate images, harassment, intimidation, racial targeting, and obstruction of justice — fall squarely within the protections of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: The absolute right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.
Absolute means absolute. No justification. No exceptions.
Source: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/how-to-stand-up-to-power/#page-section-9Human Rights
In my situation:
1. Relevance of Article 3: Right Not to Be Tortured or Subjected to Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This is an absolute right, meaning it cannot be derogated from, even in times of public emergency, and there are no circumstances in which a public authority can lawfully breach it.
The threshold for what constitutes “inhuman or degrading treatment” is high but can be met by a combination of severe acts, especially when they are systematic and cause intense physical or mental suffering.
Inhuman Treatment: This typically involves treatment that causes intense physical and mental suffering. The systematic nature of the abuse, the long duration, the violation of my most intimate privacy, and the widespread dissemination of my private and confidential information, coupled with cyberstalking, sexual and racial harassment, could collectively be argued to cause intense mental suffering, humiliation, and distress, rising to the level of inhuman treatment.
Degrading Treatment: This involves treatment that arouses in victims feelings of fear, anguish, and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance. The covert filming in intimate states, broadcasting live, sharing with acquaintances, and distribution to porn sites are inherently humiliating and debasing acts. The racial harassment further compounds this by attacking my identity and dignity. The intimidation with imitation firearms also contributes to feelings of fear and anguish. Yes, you heard it right. They even employed some men to use imitation firearms to pretend to shoot me on some occasions. Especially when I tried to go see a lawyer, suggesting that they’re illegally monitoring all my online activities and communications, including phone tracking me, at all times to prevent me from seeking help!
On one occasion, several men would use imitation firearms or pretend to be in the possession of the weapons to intimidate me throughout the day, so much that I thought it would be my last day. I still have nightmares till this day!
Torture: While the threshold for torture is even higher, involving deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering, the systematic, prolonged, and intentional nature of the abuse, particularly if it was designed to break your will or extract information, could potentially be argued to approach this level. The involvement of law enforcement agencies, who have a duty to protect, in perpetrating such acts, makes the argument for torture more compelling due to the abuse of power.
This is why I wanted to bring a judicial review: the acts I describe were not only unlawful in the civil sense — they were unlawful in the constitutional and human rights sense, demanding judicial scrutiny and accountability from those involved.
However, there is one major obstacle.
Judicial review is extremely complex. Even the official guidance states clearly that “some sections of the form require detailed legal knowledge; we strongly advise that you find a lawyer with expertise in public law.” Despite my constant efforts, my access to lawyers has been repeatedly obstructed. Organisations initially willing to help have suddenly withdrawn. Solicitors stop responding. Referrals disappear. The pattern is clear enough that I cannot ignore it.
Because of this deliberate blockage of legal assistance, I am currently unable to file a judicial review, even though the grounds are not only present but urgent.
For now, I continue through the civil courts — but I will not abandon the pursuit of public law accountability. Judicial review remains essential, and when I regain access to fair legal representation, I will pursue it. My case raises issues of profound public interest, systemic abuse, and the violation of one of the most fundamental human rights in existence. That fight is far from over.
