## 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.


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