Thompson v Home Office

The Court of Appeal held that a prisoner claiming negligence must identify a specific breach and show that that breach probably caused the injury.

The court ruled that mere operation of a basic policy allowing inmates to retain razors will not be negligent where the policy was a balanced, considered exercise of discretion.

Detailed operational lapses cannot alone establish causation where the attacker and precise means of attack are not proved.

The respondent was assaulted in a Young Offender Institution while in possession of a razor issued under the prison's system. He sued the Home Office in Manchester County Court. HH Judge Holman found liability and awarded damages.

The Home Office appealed. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the prison authorities were negligent in operating a system that left inmates in possession of their current razors, and whether any identified breach caused the respondent's injury.

1. Disposition: The appeal was allowed. The court set aside the County Court's finding of liability and dismissed the application to admit additional evidence.
2. Key legal proposition: A claimant alleging negligence against prison authorities must identify the specific legal failure relied upon and prove that that failure probably caused the injury.
3. Application to policy: The court held that the basic system of allowing inmates to retain razors was a balancing discretion, supported by unchallenged evidence that it promoted humane conditions and rehabilitation. The evidence showed the policy was considered, so its mere existence did not establish negligence.
4. Causation: The court explained that proof of general risk or potential operational lapses is insufficient to prove causation where the assailant and precise mode of attack are not established. The claimant must prove the basic system was negligent and that, on the balance of probabilities, that negligence caused the injury.
5. Evidence and admission: The court refused to admit late statistical material. It held that the additional figures would not materially assist without detailed testing and disclosure and therefore dismissed the application to admit them.
6. Scope and caveat: The decision turned on the evidence specific to Swinfen Hall in November 1996. The court emphasised that different prisons or changed facts could require a different balance.
7. Orders: Appeal allowed. Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed. Costs directions given, including reference to Legal Aid Act 1988 s.17 and the Civil Legal Aid (General) Regulations 1989.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Home Office's appeal; set aside the County Court's finding of liability. [2001] EWCA Civ 331
• Manchester County Court: HH Judge Holman had found for the claimant and awarded damages (appealed to this court).