0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Sheppard v The Home Office, Court of Appeal

2 January 2003
The issues

Prison – burden of proof – injury whilst in custody.

The facts

The Claimant was a prisoner at HMP High Down. He suffered a fractured jaw, nasal fracture and fractured cheekbone whilst in prison. He claimed that his injuries were caused by an attack by prison officers. The Home Office denied the allegations and brought 16 witnesses to trial seeking to show that the injuries were self-inflicted. There were no witnesses other than the Claimant himself otherwise at Trial. The Judge accepted the evidence brought by the Home Office and dismissed the action. The Claimant appealed arguing that where someone in custody had sustained injuries a different approach was necessary and in particular that there was a higher standard of proof placed upon The Home Office in such cases and that it was for The Home Office to disprove responsibility for the injuries. The Claimant also argued that in accepting the evidence of The Home Office he had effectively found that the Claimant had caused the injuries himself which was perverse.

The decision

1. Following the approach laid down by the Strasbourg Court in Behiye Salman -v- Turkey it was clear that there was a high evidential burden of proof upon prison authorities to show that the responsibilities for injuries caused to prisoners whilst in prison was not the responsibility of the authority.

2. However it did not follow that the civil burden of proof in a claim for damages was different. A Defendant in such a case would inevitably be required to put forward a serious positive case as to why it was not responsible.

3. Provided that a Judge was aware of the approach to be taken there was no special rule that ought to be applied.

4. In this case it was clear that the Judge had properly required an explanation from The Home Office for the events that had occurred.

5. The Judge was entitled to reject the Claimant’s case even though it left to the inference that the Claimant caused the injuries himself and even though that was unlikely.

Appeal dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up