📘 Exhibit AD – Theory of Harm: Coordinated Institutional Persecution

Filed By: :Waseem: Malik. – Living Man, Sui Juris
Judicial Review Ref: AC-2025-LON-001909
Targeted Entities: Abri Group Ltd, Thames Valley Police, PC Harriet Lacey
**Reference Logs:** #466 (Collusion), #471 (Harassment Record), #512 (Hate Crime Witnessed), #560 (Notice to Lacey), #581 (Judicial Bias)

⚖️ Doctrine Summary – “Abri as Catalyst, Thames Valley Police as Instrument”

This exhibit asserts that the claimant’s persecution was not merely institutional negligence, but active collusion between the housing provider and law enforcement.

Trigger Event	Abri’s failure to handle Chris & Bea harassment
Strategic Pivot	Abri’s invocation of their “standard practice” partner – Thames Valley Police
Execution Arm	PC Harriet Lacey – agent of confiscation, medical harm, jurisdictional fraud
Catalyst Motive	Abri bypassed accountability by outsourcing retaliation to enforcement arm
Harm Caused	Seizure of medical devices, silencing of communications, exacerbation of trauma
Consequence	Complete breakdown of lawful protection, triggering High Court jurisdiction challenge

🔎 Legal Doctrine Codification

“Coordinated Harm Doctrine”: When one institution triggers retaliation through another, they become co-responsible for all consequences arising from the abuse.
Case Analogues:
- R v Somerset CC ex p Dixon: Administrative collusion voids independent adjudication
- ECHR Article 3 & 8: Joint liability where partnership causes inhuman or degrading treatment
- Gujra v DPP: If CPS is invited to engage and fails, it becomes complicit in procedural dishonour