Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court dismisses a case brought by a prisoner who was assaulted by a fellow inmate, finding that the assault was sudden, unprovoked, and not reasonably foreseeable by the prison authorities. The plaintiff alleged that the prison failed to take reasonable care to prevent the assault, particularly in light of a recent disciplinary sanction against the aggressor. However, the court was not convinced that the assault could have been anticipated based on the aggressor's behavior or the disciplinary action taken. The court also found no breach of duty in the lack of CCTV or supervision in the prison toilet area where the assault occurred, as the kitchen work assignment was reserved for well-behaved prisoners and there had been no previous assaults in that area.
Prisoner assault, duty of care, reasonable foreseeability, breach of duty, prison authorities, disciplinary sanction, CCTV, supervision, kitchen work assignment, well-behaved prisoners, sudden and unprovoked attack, High Court, liability, P19 documentation, risk assessment.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.