The High Court has dismissed a negligence claim brought by a prisoner who suffered serious burns when another inmate poured boiling water over him at Wheatfield Prison in January 1999.
Mr Justice Gilligan ruled that the prison authorities could not be found negligent or in breach of duty for failing to prevent the attack. The case was decided after a hearing on the evidence; the court did not find that the authorities had set up or knowingly enabled the assault.
The plaintiff alleged that he had told prison staff he feared an attack by the other inmate and that officials failed to protect him, including by transferring him to a landing where they knew the two men could meet. He also alleged that a prison officer had threatened him. The defendants denied those claims.
The judgment said the plaintiff was scalded in the recreation area on landing 4G. The court accepted that the injuries were significant, with extensive scarring and psychological harm. The plaintiff had been in hospital for about four weeks.
The judge found that the plaintiff had not raised concerns about the other inmate at a meeting with the Visiting Committee on the morning of the attack. His complaints at that meeting concerned phone access, alleged staff assaults on prisoners and a request to move landings. The judgment also relied on his statement to an investigating garda several days after the assault, in which he said he did not know why it had happened.
There was conflicting evidence about whether the plaintiff had warned prison staff. The judge preferred the evidence of officers who denied receiving such warnings and rejected the plaintiff’s evidence and that of a fellow prisoner. He found, on the balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff had not brought a concern about a possible attack to the prison authorities before the incident.
The court also rejected the allegation that the attack had been arranged by an officer. It found no evidence supporting the claim that the water had been mixed with sugar or bleach. The judge noted that prisoners commonly used the boiler’s hot water to clean their cells and that officers were nearby, but said the plaintiff accepted they could not have anticipated this particular attack.
The judgment set out the duty to take reasonable care to protect prisoners from risk of injury, while stating that prison authorities are not required to guarantee that no prisoner will be injured. It concluded that the authorities had not breached that duty in this case and dismissed the claim.