CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals
[2023] EWHC 1770 (KB)
Steven Wilson v Ministry Of Justice
20 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2389 (KB)
High Court
A prisoner was attacked in jail due to the prison's negligence. He was badly hurt and now needs a lot of help and special equipment. The judge decided the prison had to pay him a lot of money to cover his medical bills, care, and other expenses, because the prison was responsible for his injuries.
Key Facts
- •On July 2, 2018, the Claimant, Steven Wilson, a remand prisoner at HMP Chelmsford, was attacked and stabbed multiple times by another prisoner in the prison kitchen.
- •The attacker had a history of violence and his risk assessment flagged concerns about his trustworthiness and temperament.
- •Mr. Wilson sustained life-threatening and life-changing injuries, including an incomplete spinal lesion.
- •Mr. Wilson was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of the attack.
- •The Ministry of Justice admitted liability for the attack.
- •The case concerned disputes over the extent of Mr. Wilson's injuries, future needs, and the quantification of his losses.
- •The Defendant's expert evidence was deemed unreliable and partisan in several instances.
Legal Principles
Full compensation principle – aim to put the injured party in the same position as if the wrong had not occurred.
Livingston v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25
Reasonableness of needs arising from injuries; proportionality between cost and benefit.
Heil v Rankin et al. [2001] 2 QB 272 and Whiten v St George’s Healthcare [2011] EWHC 2066 (QB)
Expert witnesses have an overriding duty to help the court, even if instructed by a party.
Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB)
Claims for gratuitous care are only recoverable if they go beyond normal family affection and provide services the institution did not provide.
Havenhand v Jeffrey [1997] EWCA Civ 1076 and Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1657
Assessment of future losses involves assessing the chances of future events and reflecting those chances in the damages awarded.
Totham v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 97 (QB)
Damages for loss of earnings may be awarded as a lump sum if precise quantification is difficult, but only if some loss is established.
Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority [1993] PIQR Q1 and BXB v Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania & Anor [2020] EWHC 156 (QB)
Outcomes
Awarded £153,000 in general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, adjusted for RPI.
The severity of Mr. Wilson's injuries, including spinal injury, PTSD, and bladder dysfunction, warranted an award in the middle of the relevant Judicial College Guidelines range.
No award for past loss of earnings.
Insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Wilson would have had significant legitimate employment but for the attack, given his criminal history and drug use.
Awarded £34,866.98 for past care and assistance, discounted for gratuitous care, plus interest.
Accepted Ms. Way's assessment of care provided by family members and partners, considering the principle that claims for gratuitous care must exceed normal family support.
Awarded full costs for past case management (£45,826.86 plus interest).
Mr. Barclay's case management was deemed reasonable given the complexity of Mr. Wilson's needs and challenges in engaging with treatment.
Awarded various sums for past medical and therapeutic expenses, mostly in full despite some missed appointments.
Mr. Wilson's missed appointments were attributed to his pre-existing ADHD and PTSD, not a lack of willingness to engage.
No award for future loss of earnings.
Insufficient evidence to establish a likely earning capacity but for the accident, due to imponderables relating to drug use, criminality, and imprisonment.
Awarded £2,471,252.03 for future care and assistance.
Accepted Ms. Way's assessment of future care needs based on Mr. Selmi's prognosis and the psychiatric experts' opinions.
Awarded £269,001.00 for future case management.
Acknowledged the ongoing need for case management to support Mr. Wilson's complex needs and engagement with therapies.
Awarded various sums for future therapies, medical care, and equipment, with adjustments made based on probabilities and expert opinions.
Considered the evidence of various experts, adjusting awards based on likelihood of treatments being required or successful.
Awarded £835,776.99 for future accommodation costs.
Decided that while Mr. Wilson's 'but for' accommodation would have been a one-bedroom flat, his post-injury needs justified purchasing a three-bedroom bungalow with adaptations.
Total damages awarded: £5,404,559.05 after set-offs.
A comprehensive assessment of all heads of loss, considering probabilities and expert evidence, with appropriate deductions for set-offs.