AC-2025-LON-000643 - [2025] EWHC 2024 (Admin)

The licence dated 9 April 2024 included the following conditions, which were the same as those imposed on 18 July 2022:

The alcohol tag raised an alert on 14/15, 17/18 and 23/24 December 2024, although they were not noticed by probation at that time.

Ms. Sarah Kintu, a Probation Officer and the Claimant’s Community Offender Manager, was responsible for supervising the Claimant when he was not in custody, including initiating any recommendation for recall to prison. On 31 December 2024 Ms. Kintu became aware of the alert on 23/24 December 2024 and issued the Claimant with a letter warning of potential future recall:

“I am writing to you because you have breached your licence conditions. Whilst recalling you to prison has not been considered necessary on this occasion it is important that you comply and engage with your licence to prevent future recall and help you to complete your licence period.” (emphasis added)

On 7 January 2025 the Claimant and Ms. Kintu met at a supervision appointment. The Claimant denied that he had consumed any alcohol and attended with his previous dossier in which he had highlighted test results that he considered to be false in stating that he had consumed alcohol. Ms. Kintu asked him whether he was on some form of medication or whether he could provide any other explanation for the positive result but the Claimant was adamant that he was unable to do so. The Claimant suggested that the equipment should be changed every 30 days and that perhaps low battery life may be causing problems or false results. Ms. Kintu stated that she would consider a referral to Pier Road, a community alcohol and drugs support unit, but that it was unclear what would be achieved given the Claimant’s level of denial.

On 9 January 2025 Ms. Kintu, who was catching up on the holiday email backlog, became aware of the alerts of 14/15 and 17/18 December 2024 and emailed the private company which had supplied the alcohol tag as follows:

“Could you please provide clarifications regarding this reading [23/24 December]. I note from delius that there were other violations in the days prior [to] this violation and so we are considering recall but need a better understanding of what the reading means in order to inform our decision. For example are they indicative of someone who has consumed significant levels of alcohol, 2/3 times over the average limit etc.” (emphasis added)

The company emailed back on 13 January 2025 stating that it did not have access to the monitoring data, but that another company, SCRAM Systems, did have access. That day Ms. Kintu emailed SCRAM Systems seeking clarification of the readings, on the basis that they were considering recall and needed a better understanding of what the reading meant to inform their decision. David Buckley, Senior Data Analyst from SCRAM Systems, replied providing an explanation of the results, stating:

On 14 January 2025 the Claimant and Ms. Kintu met, and the Claimant again categorically denied alcohol consumption. The Claimant stated that he believed that there was a fault with the reading and would be challenging it. He said that he felt he was being stitched up, particularly as there had been alcohol monitoring failures that led to him being recalled in the past. Ms. Kintu advised the Claimant that she was awaiting feedback from the data analyst.

Ms. Kintu emailed SCRAM Systems that day as follows:

“Thank you for the information. However I am seeking further clarity mainly because [the Claimant] was previously recalled for similar readings and the recall [was] considered to be unlawful. To avoid this happening again, I specifically need to know whether this would be considered to be a significant reading? Clarity on this would be very helpful.” (emphasis added)

The same day Ms. Kintu then spoke to David Buckley from SCRAM Systems. Ms. Kintu’s note of the conversation states as follows:

“This discussion was considered necessary given Mr Nguyen’s denial of any alcohol consumption. I was assured that the [sic] an alert will only be generated when alcohol has been detected in the electrochemical fuel cell, and that all alerts are fully analysed and interpreted by a team of trained data analysts and must meet strict guidelines. Thereforewhilst Mr. Nguyen denies breach[ing] the tag,alcohol consumption can be confirmed.

We discussed the prior recall which was considered to be unlawful and he is adamant that alcohol would have been detected at the time nonetheless and that had someone attended the Oral Hearing to explain the hearing then the recall would have likely stood.” (emphasis added)

A document entitled “SCRAM Systems Non-Compliance Report” dated 14 January 2025 was prepared by the Ministry of Justice. It stated as follows:

The conclusion of the SCRAM Systems Non-Compliance Report was described thus:

“[The Claimant] had three (3) events that met SCRAM Systems criteria and were confirmed as alcohol consumption.”

That day Ms. Kintu completed a Part A Recall Report and recommended the revocation of the Claimant’s licence. The report was endorsed by Ms. Kintu’s manager (also a Community Offender Manager), Katie Lockyer, and by Eric Bedford, a senior manager.

On 15 January 2025 the Public Protection Casework Section considered the Part A Recall Report, together with an OASys risk assessment, a record of the Claimant’s previous convictions, and the Claimant’s licence.

On 15 January 2025 the Defendant revoked the Claimant’s licence.