Isle of Man High Court considers scope of duty of care after assault on prisoner

Isle of Man High Court dismisses PI claim, following prisoner-on-prisoner assault

In a possibly novel Isle of Man personal injury claim, the Isle of Man High Court has recently considered the scope of the Department of Home Affairs’ duty to prevent one prisoner assaulting another.

In Akinmurele v DHA (SUM 22/0079) (07.05.26), the Claimant, a prisoner at Isle of Man Prison, had been assaulted in his cell by a fellow prisoner (“SP”) in October 2019. The Claimant was scalded with hot water and suffered other injuries, including a broken eye socket. SP was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and sentenced to 8 years’ custody, with an extended licence of 5 years.

The Claimant filed a personal injury claim alleging that, in the knowledge of previous bullying by SP against the Claimant, the Department of Home Affairs’ staff should have done more to prevent the assault.

The claim was premised on grounds of negligence/breach of duty (and, perhaps unusually, not on any alleged breach of Articles 2 or 3 ECHR). The claim, however, failed.

At §§ 6-18, Deemster Needham considered – in the apparent absence of any Manx case-law – case-law from both England and Wales and Scotland on the scope of the duty of care where a prisoner has been attacked by another prisoner. He considered, in particular:

• Stenning v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2002] EWCA Civ 793 (serious wounds to neck, chest and back – award of £12,000 overturned on appeal)
• Daniel Kaizer v Scottish Ministers [2019] SCLR 11 (attempted murder with a steel barbell – £900,000 award upheld); and
• Newell v Ministry of Justice [2021] EWHC 810 (QB) (assault causing brain damage and loss of sight in one eye – award of £85,000 plus interest) (a case also considered in A v Manx Care & another (ORD 2025/0006) (16.06.25)).

Deemster Needham cited with approval at § 9 a passage from § 154 of Volume 85A of Halsbury’s Laws of England:

“The duty on those responsible for one of His Majesty’s prisons is to take reasonable care for the safety of those who are within, including the prisoners. Actions will lie, for example, where a prisoner sustains injury as a result of the negligence of prison staff, or from a failure by the authorities to provide safe conditions; or at the hands of another prisoner in consequence of the negligent supervision of the prison authorities…”

At § 19, His Honour held that: “each claim requires to be determined in light of the facts of that particular case”. He reached the following conclusions:

195. … this was not a case similar to … Stenning, Kaizer or Newell where serious threats of violence had been made known to the prison staff or where the risk assessment involved a prisoner who had a significant record of violence against fellow inmates within the prison. …

197. … [In] … Thompson v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 331 … May LJ stated:
“[9] The judge acknowledged that the Prison Service cannot prevent violence altogether. They also have an obligation to provide those in custody with a reasonably decent and humane environment and to prepare them for their eventual release. The judge took account of the obvious fact that those in custody might be cunning and might resort to devices, and that no system could possibly be foolproof. He said that the Home Office guidelines gave the Governor a discretion which was to be exercised in the context of the degree of risk and the foreseeability of risk of injury.”

198. Such considerations apply … I find that in the event SP was cunning, he hid his intentions from the prison staff and planned the assault to occur in a way that his actions would not be easily detectable by staff prior to the assault.

199. In advance of the assault, there appeared to me to be no evidence to justify a compulsory move of SP from A-Wing or an imposition of restrictions on his association on the information then reasonably known by the prison staff…

201. … In a conventional bullying situation in prison, it is more likely to be the victim who is more aware of the extent of the animosity directed at them rather than the staff. … on or around 1st October 2019, the Claimant did not feel particularly at risk from SP and therefore any expectation that the staff should have foreseen the assault goes too far. …

203. … there was an adequate level of staff on duty in A-Wing on the day in question. … prison staff were not aware of SP’s intentions and his planning or preparations. The entry of SP into the Claimant’s cell occurred when the attention of the officer… was aimed elsewhere… I find there was no negligence in supervision and it is unreasonable to expect officers to be able to watch individual prisoners all the time. … the behaviour that had gone before did not indicate … the very significant escalation shown in the behaviour of SP during the assault.”

At § 204, Deemster Needham concluded that: “it has not been established on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant breached its duty of care to keep the Claimant reasonably safe whilst in prison”.

Note for practitioners: Akinmurele – apparently the first prisoner-on-prisoner assault PI claim on the Island – was notably decided on breach of duty, rather than causation. Perhaps unusually, neither Articles 2 nor 3 ECHR were argued before the Court by the Claimant, a litigant in person. For a recent case in which causation was in issue, see Coren Law, Setting aside judgments on admission – Isle of Man High Court offers guidance in ‘wrongful life’ claim (07.02.26).  Evans v Hanrahan & others (SUM 2011/20) (26.06.15) (see High Bailiff Needham’s dicta at §§ 3-10) also offers useful guidance on causation generally. And for a PI claim in which Article 3 ECHR was also in issue – A v Manx Care & another, above – see Coren Law, Recent case-law on Isle of Man Limitation Issues (17.12.25).

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man personal injury law, contact Coren Law.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.