Howden, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice

Before revoking a prisoner’s licence for alleged breach of a good-behaviour condition, the Secretary of State must have evidence on which he could reasonably conclude that a breach occurred. The threshold is modest. Reliable police intelligence may constitute sufficient evidence, even though it is unverified and does not identify detailed names, dates or places. The decision-maker is not invariably required to make further enquiries. The assessment must balance fairness to the prisoner against the public interest in reducing risk. Once the conclusion that a breach was reasonably established is valid, the recall decision is assessed on the whole material before the Secretary of State.

The claimant, a serving prisoner released on licence, challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to revoke his licence and recall him to custody. The decision followed police intelligence alleging that he had supplied cocaine, assaulted another person and threatened to shoot him. The claimant admitted associating with known drug dealers, but the alleged offending had not resulted in prosecution and the intelligence had not been independently verified.

The issue was whether, in a non-urgent situation, the Secretary of State could accept the police intelligence at face value without making further enquiries.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision to recall the claimant was lawful.
2. The applicable question was whether there was evidence on which the Secretary of State could reasonably conclude that the claimant had breached his licence condition. This was expressed by reference to R (Gulliver) v Parole Board [2007] EWCA Civ 1386 and, in equivalent terms, R (McDonagh) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWHC 369 (Admin).
3. The evidential threshold was modest. The material relevant to breach consisted of the police intelligence, Detective Sergeant Slater’s opinion that his sources were credible, and confirmation that the police could disclose no further information. The case fell on the side of the line where the Secretary of State could properly act on the material available.
4. The Secretary of State was not obliged to seek a more detailed police statement identifying names, dates and places. The decision-maker had to weigh fairness to the prisoner against mitigation of risk to the public. Requiring a more meticulous examination of the facts would have placed too great a weight on the public interest in favour of the prisoner.
5. Having reasonably concluded that a breach had occurred, the Secretary of State was entitled to decide on recall by considering the whole material supplied by the Probation Service, including the claimant’s offending history, risk assessment, admissions and supervision record.