Bates v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 04 March 1998
• Date: 04 March 1998
• Docket Number: [S.C.
• Court: Supreme Court

Bates v. Minister for Justice

Michael Bates

Plaintiff

and

The Minister for Justice, Ireland and The Attorney General

Defendants

[S.C. No. 266 of 1995]

Supreme Court

Negligence - Duty of Care - Prison Authorities - Duty of care of prison authorities to prisoners - Prisoner assaulted by another prisoner - Balance between security and constitutional rights of prisoners - Whether assault should have been anticipated.

The plaintiff, while a prisoner, was attacked in his cell by another prisoner who threw a jug of hot water in his face, hit him over the head with a heavy object and cut him with a knife. As a result of this attack, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries and in these proceedings he claimed damages against the defendants for their alleged failure to take reasonable care for his safety. The High Court (Johnson J.) dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court (Murphy, Lynch and Barron JJ.), in dismissing the appeal, 1, that the onus on prison authorities was to take reasonable care for the safety of the prisoners, not to guarantee their safety.

Muldoon v. Ireland [1988] I.L.R.M. 367 approved.

2. That the duty of care must be tested in the context of a balance between the need to preserve security and safety on the one hand and the obligation to recognise the constitutional rights of the prisoners and their dignity as human beings on the other hand.

3. That cases of this nature ultimately depended on what should have been anticipated by the defendants.

Cases mentioned in this report:-

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562.

Muldoon v. Ireland [1988] I.L.R.M. 367.

Appeal from the High Court.

The facts have been set out in the headnote and are set out in the judgment of Murphy J.,infra.

By plenary summons dated the 13th December, 1988, the plaintiff sought damages for negligence. The claim was dismissed by the High Court (Johnson J.) in a judgment delivered on the 18th May, 1995.

Notice of appeal was filed on the 28th July, 1995. The appeal came for hearing before the Supreme Court (Murphy, Lynch and Barron JJ.) on the 5th February, 1998.

Cur.adv.vult.

Murphy J. 4th March, 1998

In this case the plaintiff claims damages against the defendants for their alleged failure to take reasonable care for his safety at a time when he, the plaintiff, was a prisoner in Limerick Prison.

The particular incident of which the plaintiff complains occurred on the morning of the 20th July, 1988. There was little dispute as to what actually occurred. The plaintiff was in his cell in the area of Limerick Prison known as"A3". It was about 9 a.m. The plaintiff had had his breakfast and returned to his bed where he was "dozing off", as he described it, when his cell door opened and another inmate, Mr. Brian Looney, entered and attacked him. It was agreed that the attack was horrific and caused serious injury to the plaintiff. Mr. Looney threw a jug of hot water containing sugar in the plaintiff's face; hit him over the head with a heavy object and cut him badly with a knife or blade. The...