St George v The Home Office
David Pittaway QC and Jane Tracy Forster (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) represented Mr St George at first instance and in the Court of Appeal where they succeeded for a second time on behalf of their client in a judgment handed down on 8th October 2008. A strong court (Ward LJ, Dyson LJ and Lloyd LJ) dismissed the Home Office's appeal and allowed Mr St George's cross appeal against the decision of Mackay J on 26th October 1997. He held that the Home Office had been in breach of the duty of care it owed to Ryan St George whilst an inmate at HMP Brixton, and that the breach of duty caused severe brain damage. He found that there had been contributory negligence on the part of Mr St George as a result of his addiction to benzodiazepine and alcohol and reduced the damages by 15% to reflect the claimant's fault. The contributory negligence issue is one on which there was no direct previous authority.
Mr St George sustained a serious head injury in November 1997 after he fell from a top bunk at HMP Brixton during an epileptic fit. The Home Office admitted that he should not have been allocated a top bunk because of his history of alcohol and drug withdrawal seizures but denied that the blow to his head triggered status epilepticus. The trial judge found that negligent first aid and lack of medical attention to the maintenance of his airway and a delay in transportation to hospital resulted in hypoxic-ischaemic brain damage. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the blow to Mr St George's head triggered status epilepticus and dismissed the appeal. They allowed the cross-appeal on the trial judge's finding of contributory negligence on the grounds that Mr St George's fault in becoming addicted to alcohol and drugs in his mid-teens was not a potent cause of status epilepticus and the consequent brain injury nor was it just and equitable to reduce his damages.
PLEASE NOTE The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. By accessing any of these articles you accept that you have no right or recourse against the providers of information on this web site.