Newell v Ministry of Justice

A prison authority owes prisoners a duty to take reasonable care for their safety. The operational duty under Article 3 is breached where the authority knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk of prohibited treatment by a third party and failed to take measures within its powers which, judged reasonably, might have avoided that risk.

The court may extend the one-year time limit under section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 where, having regard to all the circumstances, doing so is equitable. Relevant considerations include the length and explanation of delay, prejudice to the evidence, the strength of the claim and the consequences of refusing an extension.

The claimant, a prisoner serving a whole life term, was seriously injured when another prisoner attacked him in an exercise yard at HMP Woodhill on 27 November 2014. He claimed in negligence and under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging that the Ministry of Justice failed to protect him from a known risk posed by the other prisoner.

The Article 3 claim was issued outside the one-year period in section 7(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The court therefore had to determine whether time should be extended, whether the defendant had breached its common-law duty and the Article 3 operational duty, and what relief and damages should follow.

1. Negligence. The claimant proved that the defendant failed to keep him reasonably safe. By 26 November 2014, the other prisoner was known to pose a high and increasing risk of serious violence to staff and prisoners. His transfer deadline had expired, and the risk was present and continuing. The claimant was nevertheless returned to association with him.
2. The decision to permit continued association breached the duty of care. The risk applied to an identifiable group, even though no particular victim had been named. Removing the prisoner from association and placing him on single unlock was reasonable and practicable. That measure would have prevented the attack.
3. Extension of time. The court extended time under section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The delay in issuing the claim was relatively modest. The claimant’s serious brain injury, cognitive dysfunction and imprisonment explained some delay. Although witness recollection had deteriorated, the key documentary evidence remained available and the defendant had not shown significant forensic prejudice. The claimant had a good Article 3 claim and would otherwise lose the opportunity to obtain a declaration.
4. Article 3. The operational duty was breached because the defendant knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk of a breach of Article 3 by a third party. The risk was real, present, continuing and increasing. The defendant failed to take reasonable measures which might have avoided it. The negligence findings therefore also established the Article 3 breach.
5. Relief. General damages for the serious brain, eye and facial injuries were assessed at £85,000, taking account of the totality of the injuries and overlap between the relevant Judicial College Guidelines. A declaration of breach of the claimant’s Article 3 rights was made by consent, with agreed interest.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.