St George v Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068

Facts

  • Mr. St George, the claimant, was a prisoner with a history of drug dependency.
  • He sustained injuries during an altercation with another inmate while in custody.
  • Mr. St George alleged that the Home Office, as the defendant, failed to provide adequate supervision, thereby breaching its duty of care.
  • The defendant contended that the claimant’s drug dependency was a significant factor in the incident and argued this potentially reduced or negated liability.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant’s drug dependency was a relevant consideration in assessing the Home Office’s liability for the injuries sustained.
  2. Whether the claimant’s drug dependency constituted contributory negligence affecting the right to recover damages.
  3. Whether foreseeability and causation principles limited or excluded the Home Office’s liability given the claimant’s personal circumstances.

Decision

  • The Court held that the claimant’s drug dependency, while relevant, did not absolve the defendant of liability.
  • The Home Office’s failure to provide a safe environment for prisoners was found to be an independent and direct cause of the claimant’s injuries.
  • The Court rejected the argument that the claimant’s drug dependency amounted to contributory negligence, determining it was a pre-existing condition rather than a voluntary act contributing to the harm.
  • The duty of care owed by the Home Office extended to all prisoners regardless of personal circumstances.

Legal Principles

  • A pre-existing condition such as drug or alcohol dependency does not amount to contributory negligence unless it directly and voluntarily contributes to the harm suffered.
  • The defendant’s duty of care operates independently from the claimant’s personal vulnerabilities.
  • Foreseeability remains central to the analysis of causation; a defendant remains liable where their breach foreseeably results in harm, even to claimants with pre-existing conditions.
  • Defendants cannot evade liability solely by referring to a claimant’s personal circumstances if those circumstances are not a direct legal cause of the injury.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that claimants’ pre-existing conditions, such as drug dependency, do not amount to contributory negligence in negligence claims unless directly contributory in a legally relevant way. The Home Office was found liable for failing to provide a safe environment, affirming that the duty of care extends to all prisoners irrespective of their pre-existing vulnerabilities.

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