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

Fecha: 31-Jul-2025

Were there reasonable grounds for concluding that there was a breach of licence conditions?

113.

This question raises the issues whether the information before the Defendant was “reasonably accurate” and whether adequate investigation had been performed by the Defendant before deciding to recall the Claimant.

114.

The evidence before the Defendant included the following:

The licence itself.

ii)

A record of the Claimant’s convictions.

iii)

Part A Recall Report dated 15 January 2025 from Probation.

iv)

Claimant’s OASys report dated 15 January 2025.

Verbal and written enquiries from SCRAM Systems.

115.

The evidence relied upon by the Defendant in support of a finding that there was a breach of licence conditions includes the following:

The licence conditions included complete abstinence from alcohol.

ii)

There were three alcohol alerts indicating ingestion of alcohol in a short period of time, on 14/15, 17/18 and 23/24 December 2024.

iii)

The Claimant disputed that he had drunk any alcohol at all, and questioned the accuracy of the tag, asserting that the equipment needed to be changed every 30 days and that perhaps low battery life may have caused false results. He did not proffer the results of any tests which supported his claim of having not drunk any alcohol during the relevant period.

iv)

On 13 January 2025 Ms. Kintu emailed SCRAM systems to say that they were considering recall and needed a better understanding of what the reading meant to inform their decision, and whether they were indicative of the consumption of significant levels of alcohol. David Buckley, Senior Data Analyst at SCRAM Systems, responded by email the same day explaining that the bracelet could not tell how many drinks or what drinks a person has consumed, but that the peak TAC values corresponded to the alcohol intake of a healthy 180 pound male consuming individual alcohol units 15 minutes apart on an empty stomach. A table was enclosed to interpret the peak TAC readings.

The Claimant continued to deny alcohol consumption and reiterated his belief that there was a fault with the reading.

vi)

Ms. Kintu then spoke to Dave Buckley on 14 January 2025 who assured her that an alert would only be generated when alcohol has been detected, and that all alerts are fully analysed and interpreted by a team of trained data analysts and must meet strict guidelines. Ms. Kintu understood from that description that, whilst the Claimant denied it, alcohol consumption could be confirmed.

vii)

The same day Ms. Kintu received a report entitled “SCRAM Systems Non-Compliance Report” containing detailed readings of peak TAC levels corresponding to two episodes indicating 5 – 7 units (14/15 and 17/18 December 2024) and one episode of 1 – 4 units (23/24 December 2024). That report also asserted, in respect of each of the three sets of readings, the following:

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

viii)

The SCRAMS Systems Non-Compliance Report concluded as follows:

“[The Claimant] had three (3) events that met SCRAM Systems criteria and were confirmed as alcohol consumption.”

116.

I find that there were reasonable grounds for concluding that there was a breach of licence conditions. The tag readings correspond with three episodes of alcohol consumption within a short period of time in circumstances in which the Claimant was required to maintain complete abstinence from alcohol. The Defendant, being aware that the reliability of the tag was being questioned, asked SCRAM Systems to confirm the significance of the alerts, and was informed that it indicated three episodes of alcohol consumption, and according to “routine diagnostics” performed by SCRAM Systems the bracelet was functioning properly at the time.

117.

Although it is not clear precisely what “routine diagnostics” were performed, the Claimant has not requested details of the tests performed, and the Defendant has not inquired either. I have no reason to question that tests have been performed on the bracelet, and that showed that it was working properly at the relevant time.

118.

The point was made subsequently that the Claimant worked among products containing alcohol which may have contaminated the results. It emerges from evidence filed subsequent to the decision that the tag was able to detect environmental exposure to alcohol and indeed it did so. However since the point had not been made before the recall decision, the Defendant cannot be criticised for failing to deal with the possibility of environmental contamination in the decision itself.

119.

Given the need for a summary process, on the facts of this case it would be going too far, on the question whether there were reasonable grounds for concluding that there was a breach of licence conditions, to require the Defendant to send away the tag for physical testing, given that it was merely an assertion that the Claimant had not consumed alcohol without other evidence in support such as a test which showed that the Claimant had not ingested any alcohol during the relevant period. The Defendant has no absolute duty to ensure that the information relied upon is correct – the duty is to perform such investigation as it reasonable in the circumstances.

120.

It is also reasonable for the Defendant to be able to rely on indicative consumption levels of alcohol for an average 180 pound man, rather than requiring an accurate estimate of how much alcohol a particular prisoner has consumed, when the licence condition is to abstain from alcohol completely, rather than to keep consumption below certain levels.