Casey v Governor of Midlands Prison & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a carpenter by trade born in 1974, brought a claim for damages for negligence against the Defendants arising from an assault sustained while he was a prisoner at Midlands Prison on 21st January 2005. At the time, the Plaintiff was serving a four-month sentence for assault.

On the day of the incident, during the second recreation period, the Plaintiff was playing pool with a fellow prisoner when a dispute arose over turn order involving another prisoner, Mr. Egan. The Plaintiff refused to confirm Mr. Egan's claim about the turn order, which led to tension. The Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Egan broke a cue in frustration, but this was disputed by the Defendants and was not mentioned in pleadings or disclosed to the Plaintiff’s expert.

Later that evening, during the third recreation period, the Plaintiff was assaulted in the outdoor yard attached to B wing, which is accessible only to prisoners from that wing and within a secure perimeter. The Plaintiff was attacked by multiple prisoners, including Mr. Egan, who struck him with a standard prison-issued delft mug. The Plaintiff sustained multiple lacerations and bruises, requiring hospital treatment and resulting in lasting scarring and nerve damage.

Mr. Kennedy, Assistant Governor of Midlands Prison, gave evidence on the prison regime and security measures, explaining that prisoners are thoroughly searched on admission and when leaving their wing, but not when moving within the wing, including to the exercise yard. The Defendants aimed to maintain a humane regime respecting prisoners' dignity.

The Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Tasker, a former UK prison governor, opined that prisoners should have been searched before entering the yard to prevent weapons like the delft mug from being brought in. The Defendants did not present their own evidence but relied on Mr. Kennedy’s testimony.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to search prisoners entering the recreation yard, thereby allowing the assault weapon to be brought in.
2. Whether the Defendants were negligent in failing to act on the known propensities of Mr. Egan following the earlier incident in the pool room.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendants negligently failed to conduct searches of prisoners entering the recreation yard, which would have detected the delft mug used as a weapon and prevented the assault.
• The Defendants failed to investigate or manage Mr. Egan’s behavior after the pool room incident, despite his alleged propensity for violence, which could have averted the assault.

Defendants' Arguments

• Searching prisoners moving within their own wing, including to the exercise yard, is neither practical nor humane given the number of prisoners and frequency of recreation periods.
• There was no evidence that Mr. Egan’s conduct warranted special precautions; he had no recent violent incidents and was not known to the Plaintiff prior to the assault.
• The pool cue breaking allegation was not credible and was first raised late in proceedings without supporting documentation or investigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the duty of care owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff in light of the facts and expert evidence. It acknowledged that prison authorities must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, but not guarantee prisoner safety. The court accepted the Defendants’ evidence that searching prisoners moving within their own wing, including to the exercise yard, was not standard practice, was impractical, and would impose undue hardship and dehumanization on prisoners.

The court found no evidence of prior assaults involving weapons in the yard, and that the risk of assault with a delft mug was remote and not reasonably foreseeable. The court rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that all prisoners should be searched before yard access, noting that even with searches, small weapons could evade detection and assaults could occur elsewhere within the prison.

Regarding the alleged pool cue breaking incident, the court disbelieved the Plaintiff’s account due to late disclosure, lack of documentary evidence, and absence of corroboration. It further found no basis to conclude that Mr. Egan’s past behavior warranted special precautions or that any investigation would have prevented the assault.

Balancing the interests of security and prisoner dignity, the court concluded that the Defendants’ regime was reasonable and proportionate, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish negligence or causation.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for negligence.

The decision directly affects the parties by rejecting the negligence claim and upholding the current prison regime regarding searches within wings. The court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed established principles balancing prisoner safety with humane treatment and dignity. The ruling implies that routine searches of prisoners moving within their own wing, including to exercise yards, are not mandated absent evidence of a significant risk of harm.