The High Court dismissed Michael Sage’s negligence action against the Minister for Justice, the Governor of Cork Prison, Ireland and the Attorney General over a 2002 assault at Fort Mitchell Prison, Cork. The court found the prison authorities had not breached their duty of care. It noted that Sage had obtained judgment against Patrick Hogan, one of the two men who assaulted him; damages for those injuries could be assessed later if requested and on notice to Hogan.
In a judgment dated 1 March 2011, Ms Justice Mary Irvine said Sage was attacked on 31 July 2002, his second day as a prisoner at Fort Mitchell, then also known as Spike Island. He had been sentenced to ten years for manslaughter five days earlier. The weapon was never found. The parties agreed it was likely made from a metal chair leg weighted with batteries.
Sage told the court he feared William Roche, who had been tried separately for the killing that led to Sage’s manslaughter conviction. Sage said he had sought protective custody at Mountjoy Prison, where Roche was held, and believed his concerns would be addressed after his transfer. He argued prison authorities should have kept him in protective custody at Fort Mitchell, checked whether Roche’s associates were there, and provided adequate searches and supervision.
The court accepted evidence from Teresa McCormack, an assistant chief officer at Fort Mitchell, that the prison governors would have discussed the reasons for the transfer, and that Sage had an opportunity on arrival to raise safety concerns but did not do so. Justice Irvine rejected his claim that he expected protective custody at Fort Mitchell. She also found that the yard was supervised according to standard practice and staff responded under the prison’s emergency procedure.
The judge said the authorities had acted on Sage’s concerns at Mountjoy by placing him in protective custody there until he could be moved. It was reasonable, she found, to consider him reasonably safe after transfer to a prison where Roche was not held, unless Sage raised a specific concern or later events indicated a risk. The two men who assaulted him were not known to be Roche’s associates, and the court found no basis to conclude that enquiries would have prevented the attack.
The court also rejected the argument that the weapon itself proved inadequate security. It found no evidence that the weapon had been brought into the prison or that the items used to make it should have been found through existing searches. Sage called no expert evidence on the prison’s security system. The judge said the assault was regrettable, but concluded Sage had not proved negligence by the first four defendants and dismissed the action against them.