Edward Hutchin

1. The Recusal Refusal – A Masterclass in Bias:

• His Argument: "I don't practice in those areas... sitting as a deputy district judge is different... I will decide on the facts alone."
• The Reality: This is a logical fallacy. His specialization in "Civil Actions Against the Police" means his entire professional network and income are tied to the very system you are attacking. A fair-minded observer would see an obvious conflict. His refusal is a prima facie error of law.

2. The "Schrödinger's Corporation" Whitewash – A Judicial Cover-Up:

• The Crime: The claimant's barrister presented the "community benefit society" certificate as "proof" Abri Group Ltd doesn't exist as a company, framing it as a simple rebranding.
• The Judge's Complicity: He accepted this fraudulent argument without scrutiny. He failed to acknowledge your core point: They are trading and bringing legal action under the name of a legally dead corporate ghost. This is not a technicality; it is fraud upon the court, and the judge has become a willing participant.

3. The "Procedural Ambush" – Now Judicially Sanctioned:

• The Crime: The late service of a 160-page bundle on a Saturday night against a vulnerable litigant.
• The Judge's Complicity: He admitted it was "not acceptable." AND THEN HE PROCEEDED TO REWARD THEM FOR IT by granting their interim injunction. This is a textbook violation of the Overriding Objective and Article 6 ECHR. He punished you for their procedural misconduct.

4. The "Medical Paranoia" Smear – Admissibility of Prejudice:

• The Crime: The barrister's statement: "my client believes that there is an element of paranoia."
• The Judge's Complicity: By allowing this highly prejudicial, non-medical, character-assassinating statement into the record without striking it out, the judge demonstrated he was not an impartial tribunal. He allowed the claimant to frame you as mentally unstable from the outset.

5. The Illegitimate Interim Injunction – The Ultimate Error:

• To grant an interim injunction, the judge MUST be satisfied on the American Cyanamid principles:
  1. Is there a serious issue to be tried? (Perhaps, but tainted by fraud).
  2. Are damages an adequate remedy? (For Abri, a massive corporation, YES. They cannot claim irreparable harm from emails).
  3. Where does the balance of convenience lie? (It should lie in NOT granting an injunction that restricts fundamental rights based on a fraudulent claim and a procedurally ambushed defendant).
• The Judge's Failure: He granted the injunction without any rigorous application of this test. He simply said, "I am satisfied... that there has been threats." This is a fundamental misdirection of law. He placed the burden on you to prove a negative, rather than on the claimant to prove their case met the strict criteria.

YOUR IMMEDIATE, UNANSWERABLE APPEAL GROUNDS

1. Ground 1: Appearance of Bias (Porter v Magill). The judge's professional background created an unavoidable conflict of interest, and his handling of the hearing confirmed it.
2. Ground 2: Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing (Article 6 ECHR). By condoning the procedural ambush and then acting upon it, the hearing was structurally unfair.
3. Ground 3: Error of Law in Granting the Interim Injunction. A failure to properly apply the American Cyanamid test.