The Supreme Court has set aside a €40,000 High Court award to a prisoner who was seriously injured in a knife attack at Wheatfield Prison, and sent his claim back to the High Court for a further hearing.
The court allowed appeals by both the State defendants and the plaintiff. It did not decide whether the prison authorities were liable for the attack or whether the plaintiff should ultimately receive damages. It held that the High Court had not properly addressed the issues and ordered a rehearing.
The attack happened on 19 January 2003 while prisoners were waiting for Methadone at the prison’s medical centre. The plaintiff said a fellow prisoner attacked him with a long, retractable blade, cutting his face, stomach and flank. The Supreme Court judgment said the injuries were serious. The weapon was not recovered.
At trial, the plaintiff’s expert witness, former English prison governor Roger Outram, criticised Wheatfield’s security arrangements. He said the system for preventing dangerous knives from entering the prison was inadequate and that the waiting area was overcrowded, according to the plaintiff’s account. He also said there should have been more supervision inside the area.
The High Court judge awarded €40,000 for injuries to the plaintiff’s head and face, finding that an additional officer inside the area might have intervened sooner and prevented injuries to his flank and abdomen. The Supreme Court found that conclusion unsupported by the evidence: Outram had not testified that an extra officer would have prevented those injuries. The judge had recalled him after the parties’ evidence had concluded, and the additional-officer argument had not been part of the plaintiff’s case as presented.
The Supreme Court also said material disputes remained unresolved, including how many prisoners were waiting and whether they were confined to one section or could use several. Those questions mattered to the overcrowding complaint. The High Court had also not determined the nature of the weapon, which was central to the plaintiff’s argument about prison security.
The court said the plaintiff would need to identify precisely how the defendants breached their duty of care and what standards they failed to meet. It did not require the High Court to accept the expert’s evidence or to conclude that the blade was a Stanley knife type. The matter was remitted for those issues to be considered at a further hearing.