Shahid Malik cleared of three charges in Covid testing company trial

Shahid Malik, a former Labour MP and justice minister, was found not guilty at Bradford Crown Court on Thursday, 8 October, of three offences connected to Covid testing company RT Diagnostics. Judge Chris Smith convicted co-defendant Faisal Shoukat of all three. The verdicts separate Malik’s legal responsibility from the failures the judge identified in the company’s testing operation.

Malik was cleared of fraudulent trading, causing a public nuisance and money laundering. Shoukat, a pharmacist and former Labour councillor, was found guilty of those offences. Three other defendants — Paul Moore, Lynn Connell and Alexander Zarneh — were cleared of fraudulent trading and causing a public nuisance. The verdicts followed a trial that ended without a jury.

Why the RT Diagnostics verdicts came from a judge

The trial began in October 2025, according to the Guardian. Jurors began deliberating in March 2026, but Smith discharged them in April after an allegation of jury tampering. He continued the case alone and delivered the verdicts. The Press Association reported that one juror was arrested; an arrest is not a finding that the allegation was proved.

BBC News reported that Shoukat challenged Smith’s decision to give verdicts without a jury. Three Court of Appeal judges refused him leave to appeal the previous week, according to the BBC account. That procedural challenge concerned who would decide the case; the verdicts announced on Thursday determined the charges against the defendants.

What the judge said about the testing company

Smith criticised what BBC News described as a catalogue of systemic failures at RT Diagnostics. The BBC reported that he called its approach to accreditation ‘cavalier’ and ‘careless’ and described its testing and reporting systems as ‘profoundly flawed’. He said there was evidence that some samples had not been tested. Those findings concern the company’s operation; Malik and the three other acquitted defendants were cleared of the charges they faced.

According to the BBC account, Smith said customers encountered problems ranging from test kits arriving in unsealed boxes to results not being issued. It reported one instance in which a couple were initially told they had tested positive, then received an email saying they had tested negative. The account also said almost 80% of the company’s 1,218 Trustpilot reviews were one star. Reviews describe customer experiences; they do not establish what happened to every sample.

BBC News reported figures presented in the case for May to July 2021: RT Diagnostics reported 138,738 tests, including 45 positive results, 123,058 negative results and one indeterminate result. Those listed categories do not add up to the reported total. The available account does not explain the difference, so the figures cannot establish the outcome of every test the company reported.

What prosecutors alleged and Malik’s defence said

Prosecutors said RT Diagnostics made £6.67 million in three weeks and gave customers false negative results, the Guardian reported. The paper also reported prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford KC’s description of holes in the Halifax laboratory’s walls and ceilings and workers handling samples with little or no training or protective equipment. These were details of the prosecution case; they do not reverse the acquittals.

Malik’s barrister, Jonathan Laidlaw KC, told the court that his client’s role was ‘very limited indeed’, according to the Guardian. Laidlaw described Malik as a facilitator who put up money and made introductions. He said Malik never visited the premises while they were operating, was abroad for much of that period, and had not been shown to know about problems there while away.

The BBC reported that Malik and Shoukat were each paid about £1.5 million in shares. Payment and a role in starting the business did not result in a conviction for Malik. Smith found Shoukat guilty, while clearing Malik on each of the three charges against him. The published accounts do not provide a full written judgment, so detailed descriptions of the evidence and the judge’s reasoning here remain attributed to the reporting outlets.