What happened
In 2012, prison staff received information from another inmate about a planned attack on an identifiable prisoner. They identified the target and increased surveillance, but did not explain the reported reason for the threat before relying on his wish to remain where he was. Six days later he was assaulted in his cell and suffered serious head injuries.
The issues
The operator disputed both the lawful availability of segregation and transfer and the finding that reasonable care required further action despite the prisoner's resistance. It also argued that s 5C of the Civil Liability Act 2002 required consideration of the wider burden of responding to similar threats.
The court's decision
The court held that segregation was legally available and that the evidence established a transfer could be arranged through delegated authority. The credible, specific warning and the operator's own procedures supported segregation and transfer; the prisoner's refusal, made without the key information about the threat, did not answer the negligence case. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed with costs.
What this case shows
The decision examines the content and credibility of a warning rather than its label as information or intelligence, or whether the first predicted day of attack had passed. The failure was to apply existing protective procedures to a specific risk, rather than to design a new system for every rumour.
Why another case may differ
A prison authority owes reasonable care, not a guarantee against every assault. The result depended on the statutory powers in force in 2012, the particular warning and the operator's procedures; it does not require automatic segregation for every reported threat. Quantum was reserved for a separate hearing, so this judgment establishes neither final damages nor money received.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →