Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732 (CA)

Facts

  • The claimant, a prisoner, alleged that prison officers failed to take adequate steps to prevent his transfer to a high-security prison.
  • The claimant asserted that this failure caused him psychological harm.
  • The case focused on whether omissions by prison officers could give rise to liability in the absence of a specific duty to act.
  • The statutory framework considered included the Prison Act 1952 and the Prison Rules 1999.

Issues

  1. Whether prison officers owe a duty of care for omissions in the absence of a positive statutory or common law duty.
  2. Whether the officers’ actions or omissions in relation to the claimant’s transfer constituted a breach of any such duty.
  3. Whether the relevant statutory framework imposed a specific duty on officers to prevent such transfers.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that liability for omissions requires the existence of a positive duty, whether statutory or common law.
  • It was determined that the mere foreseeability of harm is insufficient to impose a duty to act.
  • The court concluded that neither the Prison Act 1952 nor the Prison Rules 1999 imposed a specific duty on prison officers to prevent the claimant’s transfer.
  • The claimant failed to demonstrate that the officers’ actions or omissions caused him harm, as required by tort law principles.
  • The court emphasized that imposing liability for omissions without clear duties could unduly burden public officers and affect the effective administration of prisons.

Legal Principles

  • Liability for omissions in tort law depends on the existence of a positive duty, either statutory or arising at common law.
  • Foreseeability of harm alone does not create a duty to act.
  • There is a critical distinction between policy decisions (resource allocation, priority setting) and operational decisions (implementation of policy): only the latter may give rise to liability, and only if a duty is breached.
  • Statutory duties must be clearly defined for liability to attach to omissions.
  • Courts should avoid imposing indeterminate obligations on public officers and must respect operational discretion.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that prison officers are not liable for omissions unless a clearly defined statutory or common law duty exists. Mere foreseeability of harm does not suffice, and the statutory framework did not impose the duties claimed. The judgment affirms the need for clear duties before finding public officers liable for omissions, safeguarding administrative discretion in public law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal