{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01620745542949757, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032414910858995136, 'mean_word_length': 4.346320346320346, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Recent Judicial Decisions

The facts D worked as a pharmacist and manager of a shop. Her employer believed she was not putting all the cash transactions through her till. Private investigators were hired to undertake some test purchases and they observed that D pressed only one key of the register, and upon later inspection of the till roll found these purchases had not been recorded. The private investigators then introduced themselves to D and interviewed her in a small room in the shop. A manuscript of the interview was written up by one of the investigators but no tape recording of the interview took place. A record of the interview with the standard police caution was signed by D. In the interview, D asked what the worst thing was that could happen to her and one investigator replied: ‘Prison’. D confessed she had taken the money because she had not had a pay rise and was desperate for money. She gave the investigators an envelope with £1031, which was the money she had kept from the transactions and which had remained on the property at the shop. At no time was she informed of the right to a solicitor. D signed the interview record. Later, when interviewed by the police D refused to make any comment. At trial