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

The reasons for recalling the Claimant

The third sub-issue under this Ground is a factual dispute about the breadth of the reasons relied on by the Defendant for recalling the Claimant. The Claimant says whether or not there was a power to recall for reasons other than breaches of licence conditions, in this case the reasons were confined to the breaches of the two conditions specified in the Defendant’s Notice of Recall. Any attempt to rely on wider reasons amounts to mere post-facto rationalisation or the admission of extraneous material and should not be allowed.

As I have set out at paragraph 24 above, the “Secretary of State’s Reasons for Licence Revocation’ refers first to breaches of his licence conditions 5(i) and (iii). It then continued:

“In view of the offences for which you were originally sentenced, the risk suggested

by your offending history and your behaviour as described in the recall report

completed by the Probation Service, and which is attached, the Secretary of State

revokes your licence and recalls you to prison.”

The Claimant’s case is that (i) the recall here was for breach of these two licence conditions, but applying Calder: (ii) there was no rational basis on which it could be determined that there had been breaches of condition, and nor (iii) could it be rationally said that recall was necessary for the protection of the public.

The Defendant, first, disputes the proposition that the only relevant reasons for recall were the breaches of condition. It is said that the wider points set out in the Recall Report compiled by the Probation Service may also be relied upon, and demonstrates a wider concern to secure the protection of the public. This was material supplied to the Claimant after he was recalled, and compiled by the Probation Service contemporaneously with the recall decision. As the statement from Ms Shuttlewood states (para 10), once the recommendation of recall has been completed, an official of the Public Protection Casework Section (“PPCS”) “on behalf of the Defendant, reviews the information in the Part A report and decides whether there are sufficient grounds to recall the offender to custody and the type of recall appropriate.” (see also para 13, which notes that the report is “used by Case Managers at PPCS in reaching their decision to authorise the recall”). The fact that the Part A report was relevant to the decision is apparent, the Defendant says, from the concluding words of the Secretary of State’s Reasons for the Licence Revocation (see above), which incorporate reference to the Recall Report. This does not amount to post-decision rationalisation or ‘expansion’ of the true reasons.

The opening sentence of the Recall Report reads “This report forms the basis to request the recall of all types of offenders…”. The passages relied on by the Defendant in the Report relate to the references to absence of knowledge of the Claimant’s whereabouts, and the statement that “Probation were not notified of Mr Quilligan returning to the UK and he has not been in contact with probation and there is no means to contact Mr Quilligan. Mr Quilligan’s risk is therefore not manageable in the community.” At para 22 of the Recall Report, the point is repeated “… he is out of contact with probation and risk is not manageable.” The Line Manager endorsed the recommendation “I am satisfied that alternatives to recall in this case have been considered in this case and in my assessment the risk posed by this offender is no longer manageable in the community.” The endorsement confirmed that it was considered that “Alternatives to recall have been fully explored.” The Defendant submits that this material demonstrates that the licence was revoked not only for breach of conditions but on the basis that (i) the Claimant was not manageable in the community; and (ii) the absence of contact between him and the Probation Service, which are general concerns going to public protection: see paragraph 4.3.1 of the Policy Framework, set out above.

The Claimant in turn submits that reliance on the Recall Report is impermissible, as it was compiled by the Probation Service rather than the Defendant, the decision-maker. That the decision did not simply ‘import’ or adopt the reasons of the Recall Report is apparent from the fact that the recommendations relied on three purported breaches of condition, not two: there was an erroneous reliance on the fact that the Claimant had committed a further offence, which was not a reason accepted or relied on by the Secretary of State.