Supervision caselaw

Another “did I dream it"moment.

I recall a decision by Judge Jacobs; always stuck in my mind because the appeallant was IM, it discussed the requirement for supervision and held that an overarching requirement for supervision while undertaking a task need not necessarily be related directly to the task.

I cannae find it anywhere; anyone got any ideas or has it been held to be mistaken and expunged from the ouvre?

My colleague did this one, it is CPIP/1671/2015

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/risk-that-gives-rise-to-a-need-for-supervision-need-not-be-a-risk-that-is-u

More recently approved (is that the right word?) in RJ v SSWP para 66/7

You beauty!

Thank you.