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

It might be thought surprising that no mention was made of the Parole Board decision of 25 March 2024 in the Part A Recall Report, if only to deal with the problems encountered during that recall, and to allow the decision maker to consider whether there were any similar difficulties which needed to be grappled with in the instant recall decision. No explanation has been proffered by the Defendant for this approach.

In law, the Claimant submits that the Parole Board decision was a mandatory relevant factor and/or it was irrational not to take account of that decision when considering whether to recall the Claimant on 15 January 2025 based on an assertion that it is the decision of an independent court in materially identical circumstances.

It is conceded by the Claimant that this court is not bound by Parole Board decisions.

I do not find that the said Parole Board decision was a mandatory relevant factor in the exercise of the discretion to recall under s32. It is not an express factor within the statute. Nor is implicitly a mandatory relevant factor, and it is not irrational not to take the Parole Board decision into account, for the following reasons.

First, the duty on the Secretary of State under s32 is to consider the circumstances at the time recall is contemplated, rather than to the state of affairs some time earlier, and apply the statutory test.

Secondly, even if the previous decision was the High Court’s decision on a judicial review of the previous recall decision, which would be legally persuasive on this court, if the statutory test for recall were satisfied on the evidence, the recall would be lawful, as long as the general law was followed. What matters is whether the recall decision is lawful having regard to the terms of s32 and the relevant case law.

Thirdly, although the circumstances of the 2024 Parole Board decision have some similarities with circumstances on 15 January 2025, there are also some significant differences:

Fourthly, the Parole Board’s decision contains some questionable conclusions, in particular the decision that there had been inadequate investigation into whether the tag was working when SCRAM Systems had tested it and found it to have been working. Further, the oral evidence before the Parole Board was that alternatives to custody had not been considered, yet the conflict with the assessment in the Part A Recall Report that the Claimant was not manageable in the community was not resolved.