Spence v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (3071/2013) [2017] ZAECPEHC 46 (22 September 2017)

Spence v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (3071/2013) [2017] ZAECPEHC 46 (22 September 2017)

The court found that the defendant's servants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, a segregated inmate at risk of assault. The evidence established that standard procedures for segregation and escort were not followed on the day of the assault, resulting in the plaintiff being exposed to other inmates and attacked with a surgical blade. The defendant failed to explain why the established segregation procedure was not employed and did not present evidence of reasonable measures taken to prevent the possession of dangerous weapons. The court held that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen the risk of harm if segregation was not maintained and would have taken...

Citation
[2017] ZAECPEHC 46
Parties
Plaintiff: Malcolm Spence; Defendant: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Case Number
3071/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
The defendant is declared liable to the plaintiff for damages arising from the bodily injuries sustained in the assault.
Judges
G G Goosen
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Prisoner Safety, Correctional Services Act, Segregation of Inmates
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Prisoner Safety Correctional Services Act Segregation of Inmates

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Spence

Plaintiff

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's servants negligently breached their duty of care owed to the plaintiff, resulting in his assault by a fellow inmate.
  2. 2 Whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent the plaintiff's attacker from arming himself with a dangerous weapon.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's servants failed to ensure the plaintiff's safety while he was locked in the passage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's servants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, a segregated inmate at risk of assault. The evidence established that standard procedures for segregation and escort were not followed on the day of the assault, resulting in the plaintiff being exposed to other inmates and attacked with a surgical blade. The defendant failed to explain why the established segregation procedure was not employed and did not present evidence of reasonable measures taken to prevent the possession of dangerous weapons. The court held that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen the risk of harm if segregation was not maintained and would have taken...

Court Disposition

The defendant is declared liable to the plaintiff for damages arising from the bodily injuries sustained in the assault.

Orders

  • The defendant is declared to be liable to the plaintiff for whatever damages he may have suffered arising from the bodily injuries sustained in the assault perpetrated on him by a fellow prisoner at the St. Albans Maximum Prison on 10 April 2012.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs.