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.
Rory Dunlop KC and Tiki Emezie (Solicitor-Advocate) (instructed by Chipatiso Associates LLP) for the Claimant Stephen Hockman KC and Natasha Hausdorff (instructed by Force Solicitor ) for the Defendant Hearing date: 28 November 2023 ____________________
b. whether 'Saturday' was X's answer to the question immediately before, 'What day is it today ?' (I note that 25 March 2022, the day of the assessment, was a Friday). If this was correct, it would appear that X was contradicting or correcting what he had said earlier and was saying, in effect, 'He didn't smack my bum bum.'
On 14 December 2022, C renewed his application for permission to be heard at an oral hearing.
a. Group 1 is the most serious. Information relating to subjects in this group may be retained until they reach 100 years of age.
b. Group 2 is 'other sexual, violent or serious offences.' The Guidance says that information relating to such offences 'can be retained only for as long as the offender or suspected offender continues to be assessed as posing a risk of harm, using the NRAC [National Retention Assessment Criteria]. After every 10-year clear period, these records should be reviewed and a risk-based decision should be made on whether they should be disposed of or retained.
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.