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

The Defendant’s reasons for the revocation of the Claimant’s licence are as follows:

“You have displayed poor behaviour by breaching your Alcohol Monitoring on Licence (AML) tag, violating this on three separate occasions. Given that you committed a serious violent offence whilst under the influence of alcohol resulting in loss of life, it is a concern that you are not taking responsibility for any alcohol use. Your behaviour is in direct violation of your licence conditions, and the monitoring tag imposed to encourage abstinence has not acted as a deterrent for your offence paralleling behaviour.” (emphasis added)

The Defendant found that the Claimant had breached both conditions 1 and 13 of his licence, and concluded as follows:

“In view of the offences for which you were originally sentenced, the risk suggested by your offending history and your behaviour as described in the recall report completed by the Probation Service… the Secretary of State revokes your licence and recalls you to prison.”

The circumstances and behaviours described in the Recall Report leading to the recall and assessment as to why the risk was no longer manageable in the community were as follows:

“Mr Nguyen has breached his Alcohol Monitoring on Licence (AML) tag, violating this on three separate occasions, between 14th-15th December 2024; 17th-18^th December 2024; and 13-24th December 2024. It is indicated that he consumed between 5-7 units of alcohol on each occasion [sic].

The breaches have been discussed with Mr Nguyen and he has categorically denied consuming any alcohol, referring to the alcohol reading as false and that he seeks to challenge this. Subsequently, I have discussed his reading with a Senior Data Analyst of the tag company who was able to provide further information regarding the reading.

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. Therefore whilst Mr Nguyen denies breached [sic] the tag, alcohol consumption can nonetheless be confirmed.

Given the circumstances surrounding the index offence, in that Mr Nguyen committed a serious violent offence whilst under the influence of alcohol resulting in loss of life, it is a concern that he is not taking responsibility for any alcohol use. This would suggest that Mr Nguyen either lacks awareness of the links alcohol has to his risks or that he is not fully motivated in addressing his offence related needs. Therefore it is my assessment that Mr Nguyen is no longer manageable in the community at this time as his behaviour is in direct violation of his licence conditions, and the monitoring tag imposed to encourage abstinence has not acted as a deterrent for his offence paralleling behaviour.” (emphasis added)

The Claimant was recorded as being managed in MAPPA (“Multi-agency public protection arrangements”) Category 2, and at MAPPA Level 1. MAPPA has three categories of offender (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multi-agency-public-protection-arrangements-mappa--3/multi-agency-public-protection-arrangements-mappa-accessible-version ).

The Current Risk of Serious Harm Assessment (evidenced by an OASys assessment dated 15 January 2025) was:

As to how the Claimant had responded to supervision to date, the Part A Recall Report stated:

“Mr Nguyen has generally attended his appointment as directed, engaging positively with his Community Offender Manager during supervision sessions and has also completed work with Forward Trust regarding substance misuse. Whilst his attendance has been good, Mr Nguyen has continued to protest against his prior recall, considering it to be unjust and maintaining that he does not consume any alcohol. However the recent alcohol violations would suggest that Mr Nguyen is not being open and honest regarding his use of alcohol and that he continues to make poor decisions without considering the consequences of his behaviour.”

As to the alternatives to recall taken to try to secure compliance and manage risk prior to requesting recall, it was recorded under the heading “Warnings” that a licence compliance letter had been issued to the Claimant on 31 December 2024 stating:

“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.”

No other actions had been taken, the possibilities including increased frequency of reporting, additional licence conditions, referral to multi-disciplinary teams (eg IOM, MAPPA Gangs Unit), referral to partnership agencies, referral to approved premises, and drug testing.

Reasons for recommending a standard recall (to the end of the sentence) rather than a fixed term recall were as follows:

“Given Mr Nguyen's level of denial, it is my view that he is not being open and honest regarding [h]is alcohol consumption and lacks insight of the link this has to his risks. Therefore it is my assessment that Mr Nguyen's risk is no longer manageable in the community at this time. The monitoring tag imposed to encourage abstinence has not acted as a deterrent for his offence paralleling behaviour. A standard recall would allow Mr Nguyen t[i]me to revisit intervention work around thinking, Behaviour and consequential thinking. Along with time to engage with alcohol services to work towards abstinanace [sic] from alcohol.” (emphasis added)

For indeterminate and extended sentence offenders there must be a “causal link” between the current behaviour and the behaviour that was exhibited at the time of the index offence: The Recall, Review and Re-Release of Recalled Prisoners Policy Framework dated 1 April 2029 (“the Recall Framework”) at para 4.2.1. In the Claimant’s case similar behaviour to the circumstances surrounding the index offence was found, specifically consumption of alcohol.

The Part a Recall Report was endorsed by a line manager (of Senior Probation Officer status), who stated as follows:

“Mr Nguyen has breached his licence conditions due to three noted periods of alcohol consumption whilst on an AAMR -alcohol monitoring tag. The recent violations and continued denial around alcohol consumption would suggest that Mr Nguyen is not being open and honest regarding his use of alcohol and shows that he continues to make poor decisions without considering the consequences of his behaviour. Alcohol consumption is linked to both his offending behaviour and his risk of serious harm to the public and I therefore, agree that his risk is currently unmanageable in the community and a standard recall is therefore, endorsed in order to protect the public from potential harm.” (emphasis added)

A senior manager (of Assistant Chief Officer status) is asked to authorise and commend on the recall and the quality and content of the recall report. The question was asked whether the senior manager was satisfied that alternatives to recall had been considered in this case but that the risk posed by this offender has been assessed as no longer being manageable in the community. The box indicating assent has not been ticked, but the following comment was made:

“Mr Nguyen breached the condition of his licence as described. I agree that recall is necessary to reduce the risk of further re-offending and associated harm.”

An oral hearing of this case before the Parole Board has been directed between July 2025 and January 2026. It is currently unclear precisely when that hearing will take place.