Butchart v Home Office
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Latham,Lord Justice Longmore,Lord Justice May |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 239 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2005/1152 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 15 March 2006 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 239
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICAT
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISI
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY CO
His Honour Judge Levy, QC
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice May
Lord Justice Latham and
Lord Justice Longmore
Case No: B3/2005/1152
Jeremy Johnson (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Appellant
Heather Williams (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the Respondent
1. At the relevant time, the respondent was on remand in Winchester Prison. He claims that he was, to the knowledge of the prison authorities for whom the appellant is responsible, psychiatrically vulnerable, in that he was in a depressed and unstable condition, threatening self harm and at one time suicidal. His case is that, despite this knowledge, the authorities placed him in a cell with another remand prisoner known to be a suicide risk who did in fact commit suicide. Because of the stress created by being placed in the same cell as that fellow prisoner, the prisoner's suicide itself, the fact that he said that he was blamed by a prison officer for that suicide, and was subsequently placed in a cell with another suicidal prisoner, he claims that he has suffered psychiatric harm.
He claims damages on the grounds that his psychiatric state was the result of a breach of the appellant's duty of care to him whilst in its custody. The appellant seeks to strike out the respondent's claim on the grounds that it did not owe any duty to the respondent to prevent psychiatric damage to him consequent upon the suicide of his fellow prisoner. Alternatively, it is submitted that the appellant should have summary judgment against the respondent on the grounds that the facts do not support the allegations made in the claim. In a judgment of the 29 th April 2005, HHJ Levy, QC dismissed both applications. The appellant now appeals to this court.
Returning to the history of the matter in more detail, the material before the court shows that the respondent was first referred to a psychiatrist at the end of 1998 and was admitted to a mental health facility in Gosport suffering from "relationship crisis and alcohol intoxication", with depressive thoughts about the future and hopelessness. The doctor then treating him was concerned about his presenting a risk of harm both to himself and others. He was discharged towards the end of January 1999. He first arrived at Winchester Prison on the 9 th June 2000 as a remand prisoner, and spent the first six weeks of his time in custody in the Health Care Centre during which time he was prescribed anti-depressants and tranquilisers. On the 29 th June a "Prisoner – Exceptional Risk" form was completed referring to him as being "down and emotional" and "at risk from further self harm due to the likely sentence". Reference was made on the form to an episode of self-harm when in police custody prior to the remand. A police officer who had seen the respondent in police custody telephoned the Prison Chaplain because he was concerned that the respondent would harm himself. On the 14 th August, as a result of concerns expressed by his legal advisors after a visit to him, a form F2052 SH was opened: this is a form used in respect of prisoners who are at risk of suicide. This form was closed on the 16 th August after he had been seen by a doctor at the Health Care Centre who clearly did not consider that the respondent's mental condition justified it. The doctor recommended that he be transferred to normal location, to a shared cell, but that he should be monitored by the Wing Staff.
The prisoner with whom he was thereafter asked, or more neutrally permitted, to share a cell, was Ian Holms. Ian Holms had been arrested on the 13 th May 2000 charged with the murder of his girlfriend. The police identified him as at risk of suicide; and on his remand to Winchester Prison, he was recorded as stating that he "wants to die but not yet". He was seen by Dr Lodi who noted that he was expressing suicidal thoughts. These concerns increased during the course of May to the extent that by the 3 rd June, a Form F2052SH had been opened. During the course of June there was continuous concern about the risk of suicide. By the 22 nd June he was described as a high suicide risk; and on the 29 th June he was transferred to the Ravenswood Regional Secure Unit. On the 18 th July he was returned to Winchester Prison; but, in the opinion of those discharging him from Ravenswood, he presented a "long term risk of self harm and attempted suicide".
He remained in the Health Care Centre until the 16 th August 2000. He was then placed in a cell with another inmate Terry Whitmore who clearly found him very demanding and eventually asked for a transfer. It was in those circumstances that the respondent came to share a cell with Ian Holms. They both came from Gosport, and it may well be that Ian Holms specifically asked if he could share with the respondent; and the respondent did not object.
The respondent's case is that that throughout the time that he was Ian Holms's cell mate, Ian Holms was contemplating suicide and put him under considerable psychological pressure not to disclose that. He accepts that, as a result, he did not pass on information to the prison staff about his concerns. Ian Holms clearly had access to drugs, as he tested positive for amphetamines on the 26 th September 2000 when he complained about not sleeping, and appeared "dopy" to a prison doctor Dr Doornbos.
On the day before his death, Ian Holms was seen by a Dr Nayani on the instructions of Ian Holms's solicitors in order to prepare a report for the purposes of his defence at trial. Dr Nayani in his evidence at the subsequent inquest said:
"He didn't come across as a gentleman with striking signs of clinical depression … He came across as an emotional man. He came across as a man who is easily upset; he came across as a man who was obviously finding it difficult to come to terms with his predicament for perfectly obvious reasons."
The doctor went on to say that he had not expected suicide.
Ian Holms was discovered dead by the respondent at about 4.30 a.m. on the 29 th September 2000. He had strangled himself with a ligature attached to his bed.
The next day another prisoner, Andrew Page attempted suicide by hanging. The respondent was put on constant watch over that weekend, presumably to obviate the risk of his suicide. According to the respondent, at the end of the weekend a prison officer told him that if anyone were to blame for Ian Holms's death, it was the respondent. The respondent's case is that this was intended to be a criticism of the fact that he had not reported to the prison authorities his concerns about the risk of Ian Holms committing suicide during the time that he was his cell mate. The position was thereafter exacerbated by the fact that the respondent was made to share a cell with Andrew Page.
In the amended particulars of claim, the respondent claims damages for pain, injury, loss and damage:
"In consequence of the suicide of Mr Holms and his feelings of responsibility, the claimant developed an adjustment disorder. Symptoms included pronounced distress, nightmares...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P McD v The Governor of the X Prison
...case, it would have been unlawful to use force to compel the appellant to take food. 50 Counsel for the appellant referred also to Butchart v. The Home Office [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1155, a decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Butchart concerned a motion to strike out proceedings......
-
Abrahart v University of Bristol
...nor reasonable and in the development of the law of negligence an increment too far”. (emphasis added). 154. In Butchart v Home Office [2006] 1WLR 1155 the relationship was one of prisoner on remand/prison; the claimant’s claim for psychiatric injury survived a strike out application in the......