Knowles v Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff's claim arises from injuries sustained during an assault by another inmate while the Plaintiff was detained in Mountjoy Prison. The Plaintiff alleges he was punched in the face causing a laceration to his upper lip and fell backwards against a radiator resulting in further head injuries. The Defendants deny liability, contending the assault was sudden, unprovoked, and not reasonably foreseeable. The Defendants also challenge aspects of the Plaintiff's narrative and medical treatment account. The case proceeded with evidence from the Plaintiff and prison officials, including a Governor and a Prison Officer, concerning the circumstances of the assault, the prison's disciplinary regime, and supervision practices within the prison kitchen area where the incident occurred.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendants owed and breached a duty of care to the Plaintiff by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the assault.
2. Whether the assault was reasonably foreseeable by the Defendants.
3. Whether the disciplinary measures and management of the prisoner who assaulted the Plaintiff were adequate and reasonable.
4. Whether the lack of supervision or CCTV in the kitchen toilet area constituted a breach of duty.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendants owed a duty to take reasonable care to protect the Plaintiff from harm, particularly given the prison context requiring heightened vigilance and supervision.
• The Defendants’ policy of issuing only a caution (P19 sanction) to the assailant without further measures was inadequate and dangerous.
• A risk assessment should have been conducted, and privileges such as kitchen work should have been suspended temporarily to prevent further incidents.
• The Defendants should have foreseen the assault based on the assailant’s alleged agitation, disciplinary history, and denial of leave to attend a funeral.
• Failure to supervise or install CCTV in the kitchen toilet area, where prisoners were allowed to smoke, breached the duty of care.

Defendant's Arguments

• The assault was sudden, unprovoked, and not reasonably foreseeable.
• The disciplinary sanction of a caution was appropriate given the nature of the assailant’s conduct, which was verbal abuse rather than physical aggression.
• Removal of the assailant from the kitchen was not warranted, and the Governor’s decision on sanctions was reasonable and not subject to court review without expert evidence.
• The kitchen environment was generally harmonious, and no signs of agitation were observed on the day of the incident.
• Smoking was officially prohibited in the toilets, and while some prisoners smoked there occasionally, this did not justify additional supervision or CCTV given the low risk and rights considerations.
• No alarm was activated during the incident, and the Plaintiff’s account of events was inconsistent and partially inaccurate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the Plaintiff was assaulted and that the assault was sudden and unprovoked, but found the Plaintiff’s recollection of the incident inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding the presence of alarms, number of officers intervening, and medical treatment received. The Court preferred the evidence of prison staff, finding no alarm was activated and only one officer intervened. The Court did not accept the Plaintiff’s account that a senior officer allowed the prisoners to fight it out on a landing as implausible.

Regarding foreseeability, the Court found insufficient admissible evidence to conclude that the assailant’s conduct or demeanour on the day made an assault reasonably foreseeable. The Plaintiff’s claims about the assailant’s rage and denial of leave to attend a funeral were based on hearsay and unsupported by prison records, which were not admitted.

The Court examined the disciplinary incident leading to the assailant’s sanction and found the Plaintiff’s description exaggerated compared to the official P19 report, which documented only verbal abuse. The Court emphasized that the sanction imposed was the lowest available and that the Governor’s decision on appropriate sanctions is a discretionary, balancing exercise not subject to court interference absent expert evidence.

On the issue of supervision and CCTV in the kitchen toilets, the Court found the evidence that smoking was prohibited in the toilets persuasive but acknowledged occasional breaches occurred. Given the low-risk profile of prisoners assigned to the kitchen and absence of prior assaults, the Court concluded no breach of duty arose from the lack of CCTV or in-person supervision in the toilets, considering the balance between security and prisoners’ rights.

The absence of P19 documentation regarding the assault on the Plaintiff was noted, with the Court recognizing that this might have deprived the Plaintiff of evidence supporting his case, which was considered in relation to costs but did not alter the substantive outcome.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants, finding that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that the Defendants breached their duty of care or that the assault was reasonably foreseeable.

The decision directly affects the parties by denying the Plaintiff’s claim for damages. The Court did not establish new legal precedent but reaffirmed established principles governing the duty of care owed by prison authorities, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence and the discretionary nature of prison management decisions.