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.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE CLEARY (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) ____________________
Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus 61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL Tel: 020 7269 0370
MR MILLER appeared on behalf of the Applicant Local Authority MR GEORGE appeared on behalf of the Respondent Mother MR WATSON appeared on behalf of the Respondent Father MR VINE appeared on behalf of the Guardian ad Litem ____________________
The case summary then sets out the recording provided by that school, which reads as follows:
I pause again. That description is unhelpful. If the house officer is referring to one burn, then I understand his or her grammar, but that one burn is not defined. If however the house officer is referring to more than one burn, that should be said. If the child was referring to one burn and pointing to that as being caused by her father, that should have been said, but was not. What is not made clear by this stage � and therefore the speed of this retraction is unknown � is that at some early stage, E had retracted the assertion that she had been locked in a freezer.
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.