Creighton v Ireland, Attorney General

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Fennelly
Judgment Date27 October 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] IESC 50
Docket NumberAPPEAL NUMBER 230/2009
CourtSupreme Court
Date27 October 2010

[2010] IESC 50

THE SUPREME COURT

Fennelly J.

O'Donnell J.

McKechnie J.

APPEAL NUMBER 230/2009
HIGH COURT RECORD NUMBER 13989p/2003
Creighton v Ireland & Ors
[2010] IESC 50

BETWEEN

PETER CREIGHTON
Plaintiff/Respondent

And

IRELAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY & LAW REFORM AND THE GOVERNOR OF WHEATFIELD PRISON
Defendants/Appellants

MURRAY v IRELAND & AG 1985 IR 532 1985/9/2561

MULDOON v IRELAND & AG 1988 ILRM 367

BATES v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 1998 2 IR 81 1998/2/368

ELLIS v HOME OFFICE 1953 2 QB 135 1953 3 WLR 105 1953 2 AER 149

PRISONS

Assault

Negligence - Award - Appeal - Duty of care - Whether attack on plaintiff result of lack of care by prison authorities - System of control to prevent entry of dangerous knives into prison - Whether prison authorities could not reasonably have been expected to have been in position to prevent attack - Whether earlier intervention would have lessened extent of injuries suffered - Expert evidence given following conclusion of evidence - Conflicts in evidence - Whether High Court decision did not correctly address the issues - Murray v Ireland [1985] IR 532; Muldoon v Ireland [1988] ILRM 367; Bates v Minister for Justice [1998] 2 IR 81 and Ellis v Home Office [1953] 2 QB 135 considered - Appeal and cross appeal allowed; case remitted to High Court for further hearing (230/2009 - SC - 27/10/2010) [2010] IESC 50

Creighton v Ireland

Facts: The plaintiff was a prisoner in Wheatfield Prison and was the victim of a sudden, violent and unprovoked knife attack by a fellow prisoner. He suffered serious wounds and secured an award of €40,000 in the High Court in respect of part of his injuries. The plaintiff had presented his claim in the High Court with the support of evidence of a former governor of English prisons, who had made certain criticisms of the prison security. No weapon had been found after the incident. The issue arose inter alia as to the conclusions reached by the trial judge on the basis of the evidence give as to prison security and evidence given after the conclusion of all the evidence, which was not part of the case of the plaintiff.

Held by the Supreme Court per Fennelly J (O' Donnell, McKechnie JJ concurring), that the decision of the trial judge was unsatisfactory and unsupported by the evidence and would be set aside. The High Court decision amounted to a compromise. The nature of the weapon was central to the claim of the plaintiff even though the trial judge had held that it was not necessary to determine the nature of the weapon involved. It might be necessary to resolve conflicts in the evidence as to the elements of proof relating to whether the defendants were in breach of their duty of care and whether standards had not been met. The High Court did not correctly address the issues. The appeal of the defendants would be allowed as well the cross-appeal of the plaintiff. The Court would set aside the order made and the case would be remitted to the High Court for further hearing.

Reporter: E.F.

Mr. Justice Fennelly
Judgment delivered by Fennelly J [nem diss]
1

The plaintiff/respondent was a prisoner in Wheatfield Prison on 19th January 2003. While he was in a confined area with others awaiting delivery of his needed supply of Methadone, he was the victim of a sudden, violent and unprovoked knife attack by a fellow prisoner. The plaintiff described the knife used in a way suggesting that it was similar to a proprietary type commonly known as a Stanley knife. He suffered serious wounds to his face, stomach and flank. He secured an award of €40,000 by the judgment of the High Court (White J) in respect of part only of his injuries. I will refer to him as "the plaintiff." No question arises as to which of the various defendant/appellants was responsible for the care of the plaintiff in prison: I will describe them simply as "the defendants."

2

The plaintiff presented his claim in the High Court with the support of the expert testimony of a former governor of a number of English prisons, Mr Roger Outram. Mr Outram made a number of criticisms of the care of prisoners in Wheatfield, principally that the system of control to prevent entry of dangerous knives into the prison was lax and that the area in which the prisoners were confined while awaiting delivery of Methadone was unduly crowded. The learned trial judge found it unnecessary to determine either the nature of the knife used or the extent of the overcrowding, if any. He concluded that the"prison auithorities could not reasonably have been expected to have been in a position to prevent an attack on the plaintiff." However, the learned judge had, on his own initiative, recalled Mr Outram following the conclusion of the evidence for both parties. He suggested to the witness that there should have been an additional prison officer within the area where the plaintiff was attacked. The witness agreed and the learned judge held that, if there had been such an additional supervising officer, there would probably have been an earlier intervention which would have lessened the extent of the injuries suffered. In short, the plaintiff would have suffered his head and facial injuries but would probably have been saved the injuries to his flank and abdomen. He awarded damages on that basis.

3

These are the circumstances in which there is an appeal by the defendants against the award of €40,000 and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff against the rejection of the claim as he had presented it.

4

A sentence of imprisonment deprives a person of his right to personal liberty. Costello J explained inMurray v Ireland [1985] I.R. 532 at 542 that "[w]hen the State lawfully exercises its power to deprive a citizen of his constitutional right to liberty many consequences result, including the deprivation of liberty to exercise many other constitutionally protected rights, which prisoners must accept." Nonetheless, the prisoner may continue to exercise rights "which do not depend on the continuance of his personal liberty...." I would say that among these rights is the right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity. Thus, it is common case that the state owes a duty to take reasonable care of the safety of prisoners detained in its prisons for the service of sentences lawfully imposed on them by the courts. This does not amount, however, to a guarantee that a prisoner will not be injured. (see Muldoon v Ireland [1988] I.L.R.M. 367 approved by the this Court in Bates v Minister for Justiceand others [1998]). Prisons may, as an inevitable consequence of the character of persons detained, be dangerous places. Prisoners are entitled to expect that the authorities will take reasonable care to protect them from attack by fellow prisoners. What is reasonable will, as always, depend on the circumstances. As the cases recognise, prison authorities may have to tread a delicate line between the achievement of the objective of protecting the safety of prisoners and the risks of adopting unduly repressive and inhumane measures. They must balance the protective function and possible demand for intrusive searches against the need to permit prisoners an appropriate degree of freedom of movement and human dignity. Counsel for the plaintiff cited the following helpful passage from the judgment of Singleton L.J. in Ellis v Home Office [1953] 2 All ER 149 at 154:

"The duty on those responsible for one of Her Majesty's prisons is to take reasonable care for the safety of those who are within, and that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • P McD v The Governor of the X Prison
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 17 September 2021
    ...where a prisoner sustained injuries in an attack by another prisoner, in circumstances which gave rise to liability for damages ( Creighton v. Ireland [2010] IESC 50) or in a judicial review, seeking to quash orders restricting association between one prisoner and other prisoners. In gener......
  • Teresa Ennis v Health Service Executive and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 30 September 2014
    ...PRISON & ORS UNREP IRVINE 27.10.2009 2009/8/1876 2009 IEHC 466 CREIGHTON v IRELAND & ORS (NO 1) UNREP SUPREME 27.10.2010 2010/9/2048 2010 IESC 50 CREIGHTON v IRELAND & ORS (NO 2) UNREP O'NEILL 14.6.2013 [TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE] CHILD CARE ACT 1991 S45(1) CHILD CARE ACT 1991 S45(2) X (MINO......
  • A.B. v C.D.
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 3 October 2016
    ...the right to bodily integrity in prison in the sense that he or she cannot be harmed or neglected by the State ( Creighton v. Ireland [2010] IESC 50 (Unreported, Supreme Court, Fennelly J., 27th October, 2010) at para. 4, Devoy v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison [2009] IEHC 288 (Unreported, H......
  • Attorney General v Damache
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 May 2015
    ...values and rights - the dignity of the individual and the protection of the person - are not compromised: Creighton v. Ireland [2010] IESC 50 per Fennelly J." 22 22 11.10.23. Hogan J. said that the obligation to treat all with dignity appropriate to the human condition is not dispensed with......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT