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.
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
[2]������� Accordingly, there shall be a prohibition on publication of the Applicant�s true identity or of any information which could reasonably lead to his identification. He shall be known as �XX� for all purposes.
[3]������� By this application for habeas corpus the Applicant challenges the legality of his continuing police detention and seeks from this court a remedy requiring his release.
[4]������� The case was processed with appropriate expedition.� An inter-partes hearing was conducted within some four hours of notification of the challenge.� A panel of two judges was established having regard to Order 54 Rule 4(2) of the Rules of the Court of Judicature.� At the time when the court pronounced its decision ex tempore the Applicant had been in police custody for around 46 hours, the proceedings having been initiated some six hours previously.
[5]������� The essential, salient facts are uncontentious. They are documented in a custody record, a series of medical pro-formae (Form PACE15 and Form PACE15/1) and a hospital medical report addressed to the custody sergeant and �FMO� (Forensic Medical Officer) concerned.� We identify no material difference between the facts to which the Applicant�s solicitor has deposed in the affidavit grounding the application and what is recorded in the aforementioned documentary sources.
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.