![AC-2025-LON-000643 - [2025] EWHC 2024 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Analysis
Analysis
Given the context of detention and liberty, under the modern context-specific approach to rationality and reasons challenges, I accept that the proper approach is to adopt anxious scrutiny of the decision to recall the Claimant.
The fundamental questions which must be proved for the lawful exercise of the s32 discretion are twofold:
Were there were reasonable grounds for concluding that there was a breach of licence conditions?
Was it necessary to recall the Claimant?
It is a material consideration to see if there is any fault on the part of the prisoner; the Secretary of State must examine any explanation put forward to satisfy himself that recall is justified (Benson (supra)).
The information before the decision maker does not have to be absolutely correct (Hare (supra); Nodwell (supra)) but it must be “reasonably accurate” (Wilson (supra)).
It is necessary to examine the evidence before the Defendant at the time the decision was made in order to determine whether these requirements are met.
- Heading
- Vikram Sachdeva KC
- Circumstances of Index Offence
- First Parole Board decision
- First recall and second Parole Board decision
- Events preceding the recall decision under challenge
- Recall decision under challenge
- Evidence filed by the parties
- Legal Framework
- Grounds of Review
- Defendant’s Stance
- Analysis
- Were there reasonable grounds for concluding that there was a breach of licence conditions?
- Was it necessary to recall the Claimant?
- The Parole Board decision dated 25 March 2024
- Failure to consider previous Parole Board decision
- Irrationality
- Conclusions