Edwin Buckett establishes liability in a claim against the Ministry of Justice



The Claimant was a Prison Officer at HMP Winchester, who responded to an alarm call which concerned two fighting prisoners. The prisoners were separated and the Claimant held one of them on the ground, whilst the other prisoner backed off along the corridor of the Wing. Three other Prison Officers failed to restrain and contain that prisoner, allowing him to force his way back towards the prisoner on the ground (and the Claimant who was attached to him). The unrestrained prisoner then picked up a metal chair and smashed it onto the Claimant causing severe injuries which ended his career as a Prison Officer.

A two day liability only trial proceeded before His Honour Judge Saunders at Central London County Court, concluding on the 30th July, 2019 with the Claimant securing full judgment against the MOJ who were responsible for the other Prison Officers and the prison.

The Judge concluded that the Claimant was in a vulnerable position, on the ground, with a prisoner who was also a “magnet” to the unrestrained prisoner. He held that the remaining Prison Officers should have used full Control and Restraint techniques, as per their training, to prevent the prisoner from re-engaging in the fight.

The MOJ made no offers to settle the claim and were ordered to pay indemnity costs and interest on costs, following offers to settle by the Claimant pre-trial.

Edwin was instructed by Vincent Reynolds of Thompsons (London) on behalf of the Prisoner Officers Association, for the Claimant.

Featured Counsel

Edwin Buckett

Call 1988

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 20th May 2024

We trust that our readers have been enjoying the Spring sunshine; the team have spent their time in the sun wisely, reading cases so you don’t have to. First we noted a decision which considers the interplay between English and Scottish guardianship; secondly we read…

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)