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

The Claimant argues that, in accordance with the Parole Board decision dated 25 March 2024, absent (1) evidence which correlated the readings of the alcohol tag to a specific level of alcohol consumption, and (2) adequate exploration of the Claimant’s concerns that the tag was faulty, there were no reasonable grounds to conclude that the Claimant had breached his licence conditions.

The Stand-in Prisoner Offender Manager told the Parole Board that “[s]he acknowledged that she did not know how/if the readings on the tag corresponded to levels of alcohol consumption” (para 2.19). The Parole Board asserted that “[n]o evidence was presented which correlated the readings of the tag to a specific level of alcohol consumption” (para 4.3), that being one of the two reasons relied on to justify the finding that there were not reasonable grounds to find the Claimant was in breach of his licence conditions.

There was no evidence before the Parole Board which explained the significance of the peak TAC readings. The email sent by SCRAM Systems to Sarah Kintu on 13 January 2025 explained that the readings could be correlated to the likely alcohol consumption of a healthy 180 pound male consuming individual alcohol units 15 minutes apart on an empty stomach. That constitutes evidence which correlated the readings of the tag to a specific level of alcohol consumption. However that evidence was not before the Parole Board.

There is no suggestion that the Parole Board required that the alcohol consumption had to be that of the individual whose recall was being considered, as opposed to a typical prisoner of a certain weight.

As to exploration of the reliability of the tag, the Parole Board did have evidence concerning whether the tag had been functioning at the relevant time. The SCRAM Systems Report dated 5 March 2024 stated that:

“Routine diagnostics performed on the bracelet indicate that the bracelet was functioning properly at the time of the confirmed consumption event.”

However this evidence does not appear to have been brought to the attention of the Parole Board, for there is no reference to it in their decision.

The evidence before the Parole Board from the Prisoner Offender Manager was that the Claimant would be managed in the community and the Claimant’s non-admission of the events leading up to recall did not substantially contribute to his risk (contrary to the view of the Community Offender Manager, who criticised the Claimant’s attitude and approach to his recall and his lack of responsibility-taking). For reasons which it did not explain the Parole Board merely concluded that “[t]here was no evidence of escalating risk”, failing to deal with why it preferred the evidence of the Prisoner Offender Manager to that of the Community Offender Manager.

The Parole Board also found that “[the Claimant] was told that future tag alerts may trigger a licence warning, yet he was recalled to custody immediately on further alerts without any evidence that alternatives to recall were considered thoroughly, if at all.”

It is correct that the previous warning given to the Claimant (on 30 December 2023) merely warned that he may receive a licence warning in the event of a further alcohol violation. However it is not a necessary prerequisite to lawful recall that a warning of recall to custody to be given. If the risk is sufficiently high and the other criteria are met, a warning may not be necessary.

The Community Offender Manager had told the Parole Board that “alternatives to recall could have been considered” – implying that they had not been. In fact the Part A Recall Report stated that the Claimant was no longer manageable in the community, which implied that no alternative to recall would have been appropriate (see paragraphs 126 – 8 above).