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

Limb 2: The Necessity of Recall

The Claimant says that this issue forms the second limb of Calder (but that the first limb, breach of conditions, was not satisfied). The Defendant contends that it forms part of a free-standing reason for recall, based on the assessment that the Claimant was “… out of contact with probation and risk is not manageable.” The Claimant criticises the Defendant for failing to make any real assessment of potential alternatives to recall and for failing to seek further information about the same.

Ultimately, the distinction between these two approaches seems to me to be largely immaterial, at least in this case; they require assessment of the same issues. On either approach, the question of alternatives to recall should have been carefully examined (see the attention to these issues required by the questions in the Recall Report), to assess ‘necessity’.

It is true that the Claimant was out of touch with the Probation Service or had never been in touch with it. However, the Claimant submits that inquiries should have been made:

Of his uncle: In the UK, when release in August 2022 had been contemplated, his uncle’s address had been canvassed as the place to which the Claimant would be released. His uncle could have been contacted, to see if the Claimant (who in March 2023 was believed to be in the UK) was living there, or if any other address was available for him;

Of the police or the Manchester City Magistrates’ Court: to ascertain more about the facts underlying the charge and/or how the proceedings on 23 March had been disposed of – it was not until the Parole Board proceedings that information was obtained showing that the proceedings had been discontinued as the Claimant was thought to have been extradited;