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

Fecha: 31-Jul-2025

Irrationality

148.

The next question is whether the recall decision was irrational. Does the conclusion follow from the evidence, or is there an unexplained evidential gap or leap in reasoning which fails to explain the conclusion, per Saini J in Wells (supra)?

149.

Many of the points sought to be made under this head repeat the points made under the first ground of review.

150.

The allegation that the Defendant failed to obtain all relevant information and failed to have regard to all relevant considerations is addressed above.

151.

It is further alleged that there were no reasonable grounds for the Defendant to conclude that the Claimant had breached any of his licence conditions. I have dealt with this argument above. Further points made under this ground is that:

The Part A Recall Report did not contain any detailed readings as to the alleged breaches. This is factually incorrect, for the report states “It is indicated that he consumed between 5 – 7 units of alcohol on each occassion [sic]”.

ii)

There was an error of fact in the report as regards one of the readings. The reading for 23 /24 December 2024 was in fact consistent with 1 – 4 units rather than 5 – 7 units. In a witness statement dated 22 April 2025 Ms. Kintu concedes that it was incorrect to state that each alert would indicate between 5 – 7 units of alcohol consumption in a health 180 pound male, but that one of the three alerts showed consumption of 1 – 4 units. She comments that that error would not have been material to her recommendation to revoke the Claimant’s licence. I find that that evidence post-dates the issue of proceedings, and I do not place any significant weight on it. However, reading the Recall Report as a whole, it is the fact of alcohol consumption on three occasions which is the rationale for recall, rather than the putative level of alcohol consumption. That rationale was adopted by the Defendant in the recall decision, which makes reference to breaching the Alcohol Monitoring on Licence Tag three times, but making no mention of the equivalent consumption levels on each occasion. I therefore find that this admitted error of fact was not a material error. Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that a court must refuse to grant a remedy on a claim for judicial review if it appears to the court that (1) it is highly likely (2) that the outcome for the claimant would not be substantially different (3) if the conduct complained of had not occurred. Further or alternatively, for similar reasons, I find that it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not be substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred (and the correct reading of 1 – 4 units had been recorded for 23/24 December 2024), pursuant to s31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981, and the recent guidance inR (Greenfields (IOW) Limited) v Isle of Wight Council [2025] EWCA Civ 488 and Bradbury v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2025] EWCA Civ 489. I must therefore refuse the Claimant relief arising out of that error.

iii)

None of the issues set out by the Parole Board were considered. I have dealt with these issues above.

152.

It is submitted that there are unexplained evidential gaps in the Defendant’s reasoning:

There was no evidence that alternatives to recall were considered.

ii)

There was no evidence of the Claimant’s risk escalating.

iii)

Insofar as the decision-maker concluded that recall was necessary because of the Claimant’s previous recall or the purported “trust issues” which were said to exist, this was irrational given that the previous recall was unlawful.

153.

I have already dealt with these issues above.

154.

It is also asserted that the 23/24 December 2024 alert was not thought by the Defendant to justify recall, and to rely on alerts pre-dating that date was irrational. I do not agree. Ms. Kintu had not been aware of the earlier alerts when noting the 23/24 December 2024 alert, and the discovery that there had in fact been three violations of the alcohol monitoring regime rather than one did justify a different view being taken of the necessity for recall. There was no need for the two additional alerts to post-date the 23/24 December 2024 alert.