The High Court awarded a prisoner €40,000 in damages after finding that the absence of officers from the central units of Wheatfield Prison’s Medical Centre delayed intervention in an assault and likely worsened some of his injuries.
In a judgment delivered on 25 May 2009, Mr Justice White found that the prison authorities breached their duty of care by failing to place an officer or officers among prisoners in those units. He limited the finding to the effect that an officer’s presence would have allowed an earlier intervention and break-up of the assault. The court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of €40,000.
The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained on 19 January 2003, when he was detained at Wheatfield. He alleged that, while waiting for methadone in the Medical Centre, a fellow prisoner slashed him about the face, knocked him to the floor and slashed his back and abdomen. Prison officers rescued him. The weapon was not recovered; the judge said it must have been a blade of some kind.
The court heard that the Medical Centre had five interconnected units. Two officers were present in the dispensary unit, but not among prisoners in the three central units. The judgment records that disclosed material showed about 12 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults at Wheatfield between 18 July 2001 and 18 January 2003. Two had occurred in the Medical Centre: one in July 2002 involving a sock containing a cup and an orange, and another in August 2002 involving a knife. The judge said there was no evidence of a risk evaluation or steps to reduce the risk of assaults there.
The judge accepted that authorities could not reasonably have been expected to prevent this attack and were not required to search every prisoner whenever they left a cell. He found, however, that given the two earlier Medical Centre attacks involving weapons, officers among prisoners could have intervened sooner. In his view, earlier intervention would likely have prevented the plaintiff’s flank and abdominal injuries, though it could not have prevented the head and facial injuries.
The judgment describes scarring to the plaintiff’s face and trunk and states that it was unlikely to improve with time. The judge assessed damages for the injuries to the flank and abdomen at €40,000. The decision does not award damages for the other injuries.