The High Court has dismissed a prisoner’s negligence claim against the Governor of Midlands Prison, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, and the Attorney General over an assault in the prison in January 2005.
In a judgment delivered on 27 October 2009, Ms Justice Mary Irvine found that the attack was not foreseeable and that the defendants had not breached their duty of care. The claim sought damages for injuries suffered by the plaintiff, who was serving a four-month sentence for assault at the time.
The court heard that the plaintiff was attacked in the B wing recreation yard by several prisoners. One assailant, identified as Mr Egan, struck him repeatedly on the head with a standard prison cup. The plaintiff suffered multiple head lacerations, which required about 20 stitches, and was left with scarring, numbness and discomfort. The court recorded that his other soft-tissue injuries had caused no adverse consequences.
The plaintiff argued that prisoners should have been searched before entering the yard, which he said could have detected the cup. He also alleged that prison authorities should have taken precautions in response to an earlier exchange between him and Mr Egan in the pool room. The defendants called no witnesses; they relied on evidence from an assistant governor called by the plaintiff and disputed the allegation that Mr Egan had broken a pool cue during that exchange.
The judge rejected the proposed search requirement. She said the B wing yard was within the wing’s secure perimeter and reserved for its prisoners. Evidence was that three incidents had occurred there in the previous year, none involving a weapon, while 12 assaults had taken place in the indoor recreation area. The judge accepted that routine searches each time prisoners used the yard would be disproportionate given the risk, the burden on prisoners and the need to respect their dignity. She also noted that searches would not necessarily detect small concealed weapons and that similar injuries could occur in cells or indoor recreation areas.
The judge also rejected the plaintiff’s account that a pool cue had been broken. She cited the absence of the allegation from the pleadings and expert instructions, the lack of prison records that would likely have followed, and other evidence. She was not satisfied that Mr Egan’s history or the exchange warranted special precautions. In any event, she found that an inquiry would probably not have prevented Mr Egan from entering the yard, so no causal link had been established between the alleged failure to intervene and the assault.
The court concluded that the attack was not foreseeable and dismissed the claim. The judgment does not record a damages award or other order beyond that dismissal.