The Circuit Court has dismissed a personal injuries claim brought by a prisoner who was slashed across the face at Mountjoy Prison in 2016, finding that he had not given advance notice of a threatened attack to prison staff.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2024, Judge Jennifer O’Brien said the assault was unprovoked and took place without warning, on the facts accepted by the court. The court was not satisfied that the prison authorities had been negligent.
The plaintiff said he had told Assistant Chief Officer Pauric Woods that another inmate warned him of rumours and that he should watch out. He said the officer replied that such threats were common and advised him to report any further information. Woods had no recollection of the conversation and said there was no record of it. He testified that if told of an imminent threat, he would have taken steps such as returning the prisoner to his cell while investigating, or placing him in protective custody.
The judge rejected the plaintiff’s account that he gave Woods advance notice. She said his credibility was seriously damaged after he twice said in evidence that the incident occurred during his first prison stay, then acknowledged under cross-examination that it was his second. The court also considered his conviction for an offence involving fraudulent conduct and the lack of detail in his account of how he learned of the alleged threat.
The assault happened on a stairwell shortly before noon on 16 September 2016. The plaintiff said he was cut with a weapon made from dual razor blades. Hospital treatment included 30 stitches, and medical reports recorded permanent facial scarring. The judgment noted that the plaintiff described continuing distress and self-consciousness, but there was no psychiatric or psychological report before the court.
The court also considered whether the prison should have searched the assailant more often. A shiv had been found in the assailant’s cell about five months before the attack. The judge accepted evidence about the balance between prisoner safety and the impact of searches, and found that another search was unlikely to have prevented a shiv being made, potentially on the morning of the assault. The court therefore found no causal link between the lack of further searches and the weapon used.
The plaintiff had also argued that staff supervision was inadequate. CCTV showed prisoners entering and leaving the stairwell, but there was no camera inside it and no staff appeared in the footage shown to the court. The judge considered it probable that, given the speed of the attack, more officers in the area would not have prevented it.
The court dismissed the claim. The judgment did not award damages.