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

Of the police and/or prison service in the Republic of Ireland.

Given the fact of extradition in summer 2022; that nothing was known about what had happened since; that there was no suggestion that any steps had been taken to bring the fact that he was under licence in the UK to the Claimant’s attention since August 2022; and the impression gained by the Manchester City Magistrates’ Court that the Claimant had been extradited back to Ireland, this last enquiry seems to me to have been particularly relevant.

I have reminded myself that:

On the one hand: “it would be undesirable and contrary to the principles set out in the authorities to impose a heavy duty of investigation and/or consultation before the power of recall is exercised”;

However: “the decision-maker and those providing information to the decision-maker must at the very least ensure that the material that is provided for the decision is reasonably accurate” – and, I would add, complete, since there may be inaccuracy by omission of material information; and

Whether a fair procedure has been followed by a decision maker is a question for the court;

(see the principles set out in paragraph 42 above).

Against that background, I have concluded that the Defendant acted unfairly and unlawfully by failing to initiate enquiries before deciding to recall in March 2023, to explore whether the Claimant could be contacted, and notified of the requirements of the licence – including meeting with his supervising officer – without use of the power of recall. I bear in mind and fully accept the importance of not placing a heavy or unrealistic duty of investigation upon the Defendant and Probation Service. But this was an unusual case, raising the real possibility that the Claimant knew nothing of the licence and had never been asked to comply with any conditions. Furthermore, the circumstances in which he came to the Defendant’s attention in February, although concerning, were not suggestive of an immediate risk to the public (see the delay in ascertaining the appropriate course of action, after the initial information had been received). Those circumstances, however, revealed both a lack of information about the Claimant and his circumstances, and a muddle or mistake evident in the reasons given by the Magistrates’ Court for discontinuance (i.e., post-sentence supervision), which in my view raised questions about what the Court had learnt about the Claimant’s circumstances, including the possibility of a UK address. In those circumstances, I consider that fairness required those investigatory steps to be taken, to assess whether contact was possible, the licence requirements could be discussed with the Claimant, and his intentions explored – all steps going directly to the question of ‘culpability’, risk and ‘necessity’.

The Defendant submits that none of these enquiries would have made a difference or revealed anything. Of course, the test is what it might reasonably have been thought enquiries would add (addressed above), rather than what it is now apparent might well have been the results. But looking at what might have been learnt:

I accept that the potential results of any contact with the uncle is unknown.

As to the second, further checks with the Magistrates’ Court might well have raised a query, at least, about the Claimant’s continued presence in the UK (given the evidence that proceedings had been discontinued as the Claimant had been extradited).

It now appears that enquiries of the Irish authorities might also have revealed that by 9 March 2023, the Claimant was back in custody in Ireland. This is the inference that I would draw from the certificate of his later conviction and sentence (on 28 July 2023), in which the sentence is expressed to run from that date. Even if that is wrong, it is possible that more information about his situation in the Republic of Ireland could have been forthcoming – since by March 2023 he seems to have been facing charges. In either event, further consideration as to how a UK licence could and should be managed and supervised should have followed.