header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 August 2013 / Robert O'Leary
Issue: 7572 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Who carries the can?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Who bears the risk for a working prisoner’s negligence? Robert O’Leary reports

There are over 130 prisons in England and Wales, the responsibility for which lies with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Around 83,000 prisoners are incarcerated in them. Prisoners work in the prisons, for which they are paid, albeit modestly. Staff members are often required to work alongside them, effectively in teams.

Who should bear the risk if a working prisoner negligently injures a member of the prison staff (or, for that matter, another working prisoner)? Should it be the MoJ as the “employer”? Or should an injured staff member be only allowed to sue the prisoner, in other words, probably with no effective remedy?

Cox: the facts

In Cox v MoJ [2013] EW Misc 1 (CC) (Swansea CC, HHJ Keyser QC), the claimant (C) was the manager of the catering department at HMP Swansea. The population of over 400 inmates was fed with meals prepared in the prison kitchen. The catering department comprised four members of staff and 20 prisoners who

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll