Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This is an application by the Minister for a secure accommodation order in respect of Z. The unfortunate background to this matter is set out in the judgment of the Court dated 7 th September, 2010, and we do not repeat what is said there.
The previous secure accommodation order came to an end in early September; for a while after that Z resided at a specially created one to one unit but that did not unfortunately have the effect of stopping Z's consumption of drugs and alcohol and so in November, Z moved back to live at another unit.
The other matter outstanding at the time of the last judgment was the trial of BB. That has now taken place and BB was convicted of sexual assaults on Z and is awaiting sentence. We fully accept that this must have been a very stressful time for Z.
Z's liver function has again deteriorated through the use of alcohol and similarly Z's short term memory is affected at times. So it is in view of concerns that Z's risk-taking behaviour has increased to such an extent that Z poses a real risk of serious injury to Z that the Minister has now applied for the secure accommodation order.
We must remind ourselves of the requirement for making such an order; these are set out in Article 22(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 . The relevant sub-paragraph in this case is sub-paragraph (b) so reading just that passage it reads as follows:-
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.