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

In my view there is sufficient evidence that the Claimant had acted intentionally in breach of his licence conditions. The tag readings coupled with the explanation from SCRAM Systems as to their significance and accuracy provide a proper basis for finding that the Claimant deliberately consumed alcohol on three occasions, despite his denial.

The Defendant was also entitled to find that the safety of the public would be at risk if the Claimant remained on licence. This Claimant has always been subject to alcohol monitoring whilst being released on licence. There is good reason for that requirement. Alcohol was described as an identified trigger which contributed to his loss of temper, aggression and impulsive behaviour which led to the index offence of murder, substantially contributing to it by his alcohol misuse. The Part A Recall Report recorded the index offence of murder, noted the OASys conclusion that the current risk of serious harm assessment was High to the public, and stated that the Claimant was no longer manageable in the community.

Whilst the Claimant categorically denied consumption of alcohol, upon investigation alcohol consumption could nonetheless be confirmed. On that basis it was found that the Claimant was not taking responsibility for any alcohol use, so he either lacked awareness of the links alcohol had to his risks, or he is not fully motivated in addressing his offence-related needs.

The combination of the breach of the alcohol monitoring tag on three occasions, his history of committing a serious violent offence whilst under the influence of alcohol, the risk to the public being assessed as high, and the judgment that he was not now taking responsibility for alcohol use, the Defendant was entitled to find that the safety of the public would be at risk if the Claimant remained on licence.

It is asserted by the Claimant that there was an inadequate inquiry into alternatives to recall. The Part A Recall Report records the only alternatives to recall taken as the licence compliance letter sent on 31 December 2024, which implied that further breaches of licence could result in his recall to prison, but there is no express reasoning as to why sanctions short of custody would be inadequate to manage the risk.

However the Part A Recall Report does state:

“[t]herefore it is my assessment that [the Claimant] 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”.

If a risk is not manageable in the community, it implies that no alternatives to custody are appropriate.

In Jorgensen (supra) the court said this:

“The Secretary of State is not obliged to consider alternatives provided that he or she focuses on the central issue and concludes that the safety of the public makes it necessary to order the recall of the prisoner who has been released on licence because the risk to the public cannot be contained in any other way, which restricts the freedom of the claimant less.”

I interpret the Part A Recall Report as expressing the view that it is necessary to order the Claimant’s recall because the risk to the public cannot be contained in any other way. There is evidence of escalating risk as a result of the breaches, which assessment was accepted by the Secretary of State.

Although there is reference in the Part A Recall Report to the Claimant’s continued protests against his prior recall and his considering it to be unjust as an implicit criticism of the Claimant’s attitude, without making it clear that the Parole Board had agreed with the Claimant and declared the recall to be unlawful, that information is recorded under the section containing details of how the offender has responded to supervision to date, rather than going to one of the requirements for recall. Further, there is no reference at all to this point in the Defendant’s recall decision itself. I therefore find that this entry had no material effect on the decision to recall the Claimant.