Razumas v Ministry of Justice

A prison authority owes a direct duty arising from custody to take reasonable care regarding risks created by custody and to facilitate access to healthcare. That duty does not ordinarily extend to the day-to-day operation of healthcare systems for which the NHS has statutory responsibility. A non-delegable duty arises only where the Woodland criteria are satisfied, including an integral function which the defendant has assumed responsibility to perform. After the transfer of prison healthcare responsibility to the NHS, negligent clinical treatment was not an integral function of the Ministry of Justice. Nor was the healthcare operation sufficiently integrated into the Ministry’s business to attract vicarious liability. A claimant’s unreasonable failure to seek available treatment may break causation. Fundamental dishonesty in a substantial route to liability can require dismissal under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The claim failed, including the late claim under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr Razumas claimed damages from the Ministry of Justice after negligent prison healthcare led to the above-knee amputation of his left leg. The alleged negligence occurred while he was detained in several prisons between 2010 and 2013. Primary healthcare had been commissioned by Primary Care Trusts or their contractors, while the prison authorities retained responsibility for custody, access arrangements and limited clinical governance.

The claim alleged direct liability for failures concerning hospital appointments, a non-delegable duty for negligent healthcare, and vicarious liability for healthcare staff. Further issues concerned the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, causation, section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and an Article 3 claim under the Human Rights Act 1998. The court tried preliminary issues concerning duty, liability, causation and the extent of injury.

1. Direct duty. The custodial relationship imposed a limited direct duty to take care regarding risks arising from custody, including reasonable arrangements for access to healthcare. The Ministry’s clinical-governance role extended to oversight of systems and identified problems, but not to actively reinforcing healthcare staff in day-to-day operations. No breach by prison administrative staff was established. The relevant failures were healthcare failures.
2. Non-delegable duty. Applying Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association and Others [2014] AC 537 and Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] 3 WLR 1000, the defendant must have assumed responsibility for an integral function involving care or custody of the claimant. Since 2003, and in the relevant period, prison healthcare was the responsibility of the NHS and Primary Care Trusts. Healthcare was not the prison’s mainstream or essential function, and the Ministry neither provided nor arranged the relevant clinical treatment. No non-delegable duty arose.
3. Vicarious liability. The healthcare providers acted for the Primary Care Trusts, not the Ministry. Their clinical work was not part of the Ministry’s business activity, the Ministry did not create the relevant risk through employment or delegation, and its control was limited to location and security. The degree of integration was insufficient.
4. Causation and dishonesty. The claimant’s failure to seek available treatment during a period at liberty was unreasonable and constituted a novus actus interveniens. His false case about a hospital appointment substantially affected a route to liability and was fundamentally dishonest under section 57. There was no substantial injustice in dismissal.
5. Human rights claim. The claim was out of time under section 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998, and no equitable extension was justified. In any event, the alleged violations were medical failures attributable prima facie to healthcare entities, not custodial failures by the Ministry. The high Article 3 minimum-severity threshold was not met.
6. Conclusion. Mr Razumas’s claim failed.