This page presents the official decision issued by Google LLC on 1 April 2026 concerning the removal of several URLs associated with my name from European search results. To ensure full transparency and to allow independent verification of the procedural steps taken, the decision is published here in redacted form, with personal email addresses and any non‑essential identifiers obscured in accordance with the UK GDPR and the principles of data minimisation and proportionality.

Immediately below, I have also included the redacted copy of my formal escalation to Google’s Legal Department, which preceded and informed the decision reproduced above. This document is likewise published for the same reasons of transparency, accountability, and public documentation. It provides the legal and factual context that led to Google’s reassessment, including the withdrawal of the primary source by East Sussex County Council, the removal of derivative content by multiple platforms, and the ongoing judicial proceedings notified to the competent authorities.

Both documents are reproduced without substantive alteration, save for the redactions required to safeguard privacy and comply with data‑protection obligations. Their publication forms part of the broader effort to document, in a verifiable and responsible manner, the institutional steps taken to correct the unlawful dissemination and indexing of judicial and health‑related data.

Google’s decision of 1 April 2026 to remove all URLs associated with my name from European search results represents a significant step in restoring accuracy, proportionality and data‑protection compliance.
Based on the documentation available and on Google’s established criteria for de‑indexing, the following analysis outlines the most plausible factors that contributed to this outcome.

A key element in Google’s assessment was the official removal of the original ESCC press release, which now returns a 404 error and is no longer validated by the issuing authority.
When a public body withdraws a publication, Google typically considers the information:

This aligns with Google’s long‑standing approach to outdated or withdrawn public‑sector content.

The ESCC Subject Access Request confirms that the original article was drafted using a Prosecution Summary, not a court judgment.
Such documents:

Google generally treats non‑judicial and non‑final materials as unsuitable for long‑term indexing, especially when the original source has been withdrawn.

The documentation shows that the conviction had been “spent” for over a year under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Spent convictions:

This directly engages Article 10 GDPR, which imposes strict limitations on the processing of judicial data.

The Internet Archive removed every stored version of the original page, including:

Google typically interprets such removals as evidence that the content is no longer reliable or appropriate for public preservation, reinforcing the case for de‑indexing.

PressReader, a professional news aggregator, also removed the derivative article.
When multiple independent platforms withdraw the same content, Google tends to view this as confirmation that:

This cross‑platform consistency is a strong indicator of the content’s unreliability.

The URLs contained:

Google cannot process such data without:

With the primary source withdrawn, these conditions were no longer met.

Google likely detected that some snippets displayed my name even though:

Orphaned snippets constitute unlawful processing of personal data, and Google typically removes them promptly to restore accuracy.

The presence of multiple individuals with the same surname increases the risk of:

Google treats name‑collision scenarios as a significant risk factor, particularly when the underlying content is no longer verifiable.

Google observed that:

When the wider ecosystem surrounding a piece of content collapses, Google typically aligns its indexing accordingly.

Google’s removal of all URLs was likely driven by the convergence of the following elements:

In essence:

This decision aligns with Google’s obligations under the GDPR, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and established case law on the right to be forgotten.