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

Fecha: 31-Jul-2025

Grounds of Review

Grounds of Review

89.

The Claimant has two grounds of review. A third ground based on Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights was adjourned by consent, for the parties agreed that the potential success of that ground, as a necessary but not sufficient ground, required success on one of grounds one or two.

90.

The Claimant’s submissions were as follows.

91.

First, procedural unfairness. The Claimant concedes that the discretion to recall under s32 is broad, but requires (a) reasonable grounds for concluding that there was a breach of his licence conditions and (b) in all the circumstances his recall was necessary for the protection of the public, because of the dangers posed by the prisoner when on licence. There is a duty to ensure that the decision maker is presented with the full information relevant to a decision and that a misleading or inaccurate position is not presented. The Defendant breached this duty by first:

Not mentioning, summarising, or annexing the Parole Board’s decision on the first recall. The recall was found to be unlawful. There were three alleged raised readings on the Claimant’s tag, and he had alleged that the tag was faulty, but the Probation Service had not investigated these faults. There was a failure to consider alternatives to recall and no evidence of a raised risk to the public, even if the three raised readings were accurate.

ii)

These were material considerations, even if the Parole Board’s finding of unlawfulness was not binding. The Defendant was being invited to recall in materially identical circumstances, which is why the decision of a court empowered by Parliament to assess the validity of a recall was relevant.

iii)

Had the decision been available the Defendant would have been aware that a thorough investigation of the circumstances was necessary, as was an adequate exploration of the Claimant’s concerns with the service provider, and evidence of either escalating risk of further offending, and a need for thorough decision making and risk assessment at the time that recall was being considered.

92.

Secondly:

The Defendant did not have the information necessary for a properly informed assessment of the Claimant’s allegation that he had not drunk any alcohol and the tag was faulty.

ii)

It was inaccurate for the Part A report to assert that the Claimant had consumed between 5 – 7 units of alcohol on each occasion, for the tag did not purport to measure actual alcohol intake but was generic. The Defendant was unaware of the multiple raised readings linked to environmental factors so it could not decide whether the three readings relied upon were similar or different.

iii)

The Part A report and OASys report wrongly criticised the Claimant’s continued protests against his previous recall, implying that such concerns were unjustified, when they had been upheld by the Parole Board decision.

93.

The second ground of review was irrationality.

94.

First, the Defendant failed to obtain all relevant information and failed to have regard to all material considerations.

95.

Secondly, there were no reasonable grounds for the Defendant to conclude that the Claimant had breached any of his licence conditions.

The Part A recall report did not contain any detailed readings as to the alleged breaches.

ii)

There was an error of fact in the report as regards one of the readings.

iii)

None of the issues set out by the Parole Board were considered.

96.

Thirdly, there were unexplained evidential gaps in the Defendant’s reasoning:

There was no thorough or adequate explanation of the alternatives to recall or explanation why they were not sufficient to manage the purported risk.

ii)

It was irrational to consider that the Claimant’s recall was necessary for the protection of the public, given that there was no evidence of the Claimant’s risk escalating or of any further offending linked to the alcohol readings.

iii)

The Claimant’s alleged alcohol use between 23/24 December 2024 was not thought by the Defendant to justify recall at the time, as evidenced by the compliance letter dated 31 December 2024, and to recall him based on allegations which pre-dated that letter was irrational. There was no evidence of an increased risk that post-dated the compliance letter.

iv)

It was irrational to base the necessity for recall on the Claimant’s previous recall or the purported “trust issues” which it was said to suggest, given that the recall was unlawful.