Tort Law

Muhammad Riaz Khan v. Commissioner of Correctional Services

[2017] 5 HKLRD 379

Citation: [2017] 5 HKLRD 379
Court: District Court, Hong Kong SAR
Date: 29 Sep 2017
Bench: Deputy District Judge Mak

Facts

• Muhammad Riaz Khan was serving a prison sentence at Stanley Prison in Hong Kong.
• Another prisoner, Tahir Kaleem, referred to as “TK,” had previously been involved in violent incidents with another prisoner and a correctional officer.
• Khan was generally aware of those earlier incidents. However, he had no established hostile relationship with TK and had previously spoken to him on friendly terms.
• On 3 October 2010, Khan and TK were present in the toilet attached to Dining Hall 5A.
• Khan alleged that TK suddenly struck him on the nose with the sharp base of a plastic cup and repeatedly assaulted him.
• A correctional officer heard noise from the toilet, entered immediately and separated the two prisoners.
• Khan suffered a fractured nasal bone, bleeding and a neck injury.
• Prison authorities maintained that Khan and TK had been mutually fighting rather than Khan being the victim of an entirely unprovoked attack.
• Khan sued the Commissioner of Correctional Services.
• He alleged negligence, breach of occupier’s duty and failure to protect him against a prisoner known to have violent tendencies.
• The Commissioner argued that the incident was a sudden mutual fight that officers could not reasonably have predicted or prevented.

Issue

• Whether prison authorities owed Khan a duty to protect him against violence from another prisoner.
• Whether the authorities knew or reasonably should have known that TK presented a specific risk to Khan.
• Whether the level of supervision in the dining hall and toilet was inadequate.
• Whether Khan had contributed to his own injuries by participating in the fight.

Rule

• Prison authorities owe prisoners a duty to take reasonable care for their physical safety.
• The duty reflects the fact that prisoners:
o are under the State’s control;
o cannot freely leave the institution;
o cannot choose the persons with whom they are confined; and
o depend upon prison officers for protection and supervision.
• However, prison authorities are not insurers who guarantee that no prisoner will ever be assaulted.
• Liability requires proof that:
o a real risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable;
o the authorities knew or ought to have known of that risk;
o reasonable protective measures were available;
o those measures were not taken; and
o the breach caused the injury.
• General knowledge that a prisoner has previously been violent does not necessarily require permanent isolation from every other inmate.
• The required level of supervision depends upon the information available before the incident and the practical demands of prison management.

Application

• The court accepted that TK had previously been involved in violent incidents.
• However, those incidents had arisen after disputes or provocation and did not establish that TK habitually attacked other prisoners without warning.
• There was no evidence that TK had:
o threatened Khan;
o quarrelled with Khan before the incident;
o informed officers that he intended to attack Khan; or
o displayed hostility requiring the two men to be separated.
• Khan himself stated that he and TK were on speaking terms.
• The authorities therefore lacked information indicating that Khan faced a specific and immediate danger.
• The correctional officer responsible for Dining Hall 5A was nearby.
• He heard the disturbance, entered the toilet immediately and separated the prisoners.
• The fact that he could not prevent the first physical contact did not prove inadequate supervision.
• Reasonable care did not require an officer to remain inside every prison toilet continuously when no particular threat had been identified.
• The court also found weaknesses in Khan’s account.
• He did not initially tell the correctional officer or treating doctors that TK had used a cup.
• Medical records referred to an assault with bare hands, and no plastic cup was recovered as a weapon.
• The evidence supported the conclusion that the incident was a mutual confrontation rather than a completely unprovoked attack.
• Even if some institutional breach had been established, Khan’s active participation would have supported a substantial reduction for contributory negligence.

Conclusion

• The Hong Kong District Court dismissed Khan’s negligence claim.
• The Commissioner owed prisoners a duty of reasonable care but did not guarantee absolute safety.
• The authorities had no prior knowledge of a specific threat by TK against Khan.
• The supervision and immediate intervention of the correctional officer were reasonable.
• The evidence also supported a finding that Khan participated in a mutual fight.