AC-2025-LON-001576 - [2025] EWHC 2592 (Admin)

Fecha: 10-Oct-2025

Heading

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 2592 (Admin)

Case No: AC-2025-LON-001576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

KING'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 10 October 2025

Before:

ELEANOR GREY KC

Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King (on the application of MICHAELQUILLIGAN)

Appellant

- and –

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE

Respondent

Mr P. Rule KC and Mr D. Henderson (instructed by Albin & Co) for the Appellant

Mr P. Laverack (instructed by the Government Legal Service) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 23.09.25

Approved Judgment

I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

Eleanor Grey KC:

Introduction

This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Justice, to revoke the Claimant’s licence and to recall him to prison, and to later maintain that decision when requested to cancel it.

The Claimant is a determinate prisoner (i.e. a prisoner with a fixed-term sentence) who is presently serving his sentence in prison. He was due to be released from prison on licence on 15 September 2022, after the ‘requisite custodial period’ of his sentence had expired; whether as a matter of law that release took place is disputed. It is not disputed that on 14 September 2022, the Claimant was transferred to another prison on an extradition warrant and was then extradited to the Republic of Ireland on 28 September 2022. He was subsequently convicted of offences in the Republic and served time in prison there. After his release, he travelled again to the UK and came to the attention of the Defendant when charged with an offence of being drunk and disorderly on 8 January 2023, as described further below. As a result, on 24 March 2023, the Defendant revoked his licence and recalled him to prison; but by this time the Claimant had returned to Ireland. The Claimant was arrested in the UK almost a year later, on 6 March 2024, and was then returned to custody by the Defendant. In October 2024, the Parole Board considered his case, including the circumstances of his recall and criticised the recall decision. However, the Board also determined that the Claimant was unsafe for release and declined to order his release from detention. After receiving representations from the Claimant, on 17 February 2025 the Secretary of State declined to rescind the recall decision. By a Claim Form issued on 19 May 2025, the Claimant brought these proceedings, challenging the Defendant’s decision to revoke his licence and seeking release from prison, as well as damages for unlawful imprisonment. The application is resisted by the Defendant, who says that the recall decision was a lawful one and, in any event, the subsequent decision of the Parole Board demonstrates that the proper and lawful place for the Claimant is in prison.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Aiden Eardley KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, by Order of 14 July 2025. The judge also granted the necessary extension of time to challenge the recall decision of March 2023, given the delay in applying to review this. The case was expedited.

The challenge is brought on four grounds. In summary, and in the order in which they have been argued before me, they are:

Ground 4: That the decision to recall the Claimant in March 2023 was unlawful;

Grounds 1 and 2: That the refusal to rescind the recall decision, made after the Parole Board had considered the Claimant’s case, was unlawful and irrational;

Ground 3: That in any event, the reasons given by the Defendant for refusing to cancel the recall decision were inadequate.

In addition, the parties are not agreed on the relief that would flow from any finding of unlawfulness, with the Defendant arguing (broadly) that any relief should be limited to declarations, given the Parole Board’s decision not to order release.

The Claimant relies on his own witness statement, supplemented by a bundle of documents. The Defendant has filed two witness statements from Ms Nina Shuttlewood of the Defendant’s Public Protection Casework Section, together with exhibits. The first statement is dated 11 August 2025 and the second is dated 9 September 2025. The Claimant objects to the admission of the second statement given its date of service, but the parties have agreed that I may have regard to its contents ‘de bene esse’. It seems to me that the evidence should be admitted; that it came after the deadline for the filing of the Defendant’s evidence is excusable given that this case was expedited and there has been enough time to enable the Claimant to respond, if necessary. In the event, it is the primary documents exhibited by Ms Shuttlewood that I have derived the most assistance from.