Attorney General v R Anpazhakan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 01 November 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGCA 78
• Citation: [1999] SGCA 78
• Defendant Counsel: K Chettiar (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Pang Khang Chau (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Date: 01 November 1999
• Docket Number: Civil Appeals Nos 45 and 46 of 1999
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Breach of duty,Whether attack reasonably foreseeable,Causation,Standard of care required,Liability of prison authorities,Attack from fellow prison inmate injuring inmate,Duty of supervision,Whether adequate level of supervision,Negligence,Duty of care of prison authorities to inmates

(delivering the judgment of the court): This is an appeal by the Attorney General against a decision of the High Court holding the Government liable for injuries suffered by the respondent on account of an attack by a fellow inmate, Foo Jiang Kwang (Foo), with a chopper while both of them were on duty in the kitchen of Changi Prison.

The respondent commenced the action against both Foo and the Attorney General, representing the Government, in accordance with the Government Proceedings Act. Before the trial Foo died of an unrelated cause. His estate did not contest the claim. In any event, it appears that his estate was insolvent or barely solvent. The trial proceeded solely on the basis of whether the prison authorities had breached their duty of care owed to the respondent. At the conclusion thereof, the court found for the respondent and awarded him damages in the total sum of $318,000.

Background

On 23 November 1991 the respondent started to serve a three and a half year sentence at Changi Prison for a series of offences of housebreaking and theft. On 3 May 1993 he was assigned to work in the prison kitchen; that was his first day as a vegetable cutter. Prior to that, from February 1992, he had worked in the kitchen, but was only in charge of the tea-boys. As regards Foo, he had worked in the kitchen for nearly four months before the date of the incident.

On the evening of 2 May 1993, the day before the incident, there was an altercation in the prison dormitory involving a group of inmates (including Foo) watching a Chinese television programme and another group of inmates (including the respondent) who were making some noise at the rear. There would appear to have been an exchange of words between both groups. What exactly happened was not clear. But the altercation subsided. No one reported the matter to the prison authorities.

The next morning, 3 May 1993, both the respondent and Foo were scheduled for kitchen duty from 7am. They were to prepare lunch. The warder in charge of the lunch shift, Cpl Vincent Tan, escorted the inmates from their dormitory to the kitchen at 7am. As was the usual routine, the inmates collected their breakfast and then proceeded to their duty areas, where they ate their breakfast, after which they were to commence work.

At this juncture, it would be helpful to give a picture of the lay-out of the entire kitchen area. [A sketch plan, which was submitted to the court below, and reproduced at Schedule A has been omitted - Editor.] It will be seen that the kitchen is divided by a cement wall into two separate parts, the main kitchen and the annex. Because of the wall, an officer standing in the main kitchen would not be able to see what was happening in the annex and vice versa. The main kitchen was used for the preparation of ingredients as well as cooking. Due to space constraints the preparation of `dry` ingredients, such as the cutting of potatoes and onions had to take place in the annex. A person who wished to get from the main kitchen to the annex would have to exit at the door marked `C`, walk up the corridor and enter the annex through the door marked `E`, a distance of some 15 metres.

Ordinarily a truck would arrive at the prison between 8.30am and 9am to deliver `wet` rations such as meat and vegetables. Before the truck`s arrival the lunch shift inmates would prepare the `dry` rations in both the main kitchen and the annex.

Reverting to the events that morning, at about 7.25am an officer arrived at the kitchen and conducted the opening `muster`, which was essentially a head-count. He then left. Immediately after that, Cpl Vincent Tan issued knives and choppers to the inmates for them to do their work either in the main kitchen or in the annex. Cpl Vincent was the only officer supervising all the inmates in the entire kitchen area (including the annex) that morning. We would add that the record showed that on some days two officers were rostered for duty in the kitchen, depending on the availability of manpower and the requirements in other parts of the prison. That day, in fact, two warders were rostered for duty in the kitchen. However, a prison officer in the `condemned block` had reported sick that morning. So the second warder who was meant to be on duty in the kitchen was re-assigned for duty in the `condemned block` as it was thought that the need in the latter area was greater.

At about 8am the respondent was in the annex next to the water tank at the position marked `R` on the sketch plan. Foo came up to him with two choppers in his hands. He threw one chopper down in front of the respondent and challenged him to a fight. The respondent refused. Foo then began slashing the respondent with the chopper he was holding. A commotion ensued. Other inmates rushed to try and restrain the fight. One of them, Sunder, was even injured in the process.

At that moment a member of the prison staff, Warder Jeganathan, was passing through the kitchen area. He heard the commotion. He opened gate `B` (see sketch plan), locked it behind him and entered the corridor and walked towards the direction of the sound of the commotion. At that moment, the respondent came running towards him, covered in blood. A Malay inmate, a friend of Foo, was chasing the respondent with two choppers. Warder Jeganathan got between the respondent and the Malay inmate and managed to subdue the latter with a riot stick. The location at which he subdued the Malay inmate, was at point E. Foo had by then been subdued by other inmates.

Meanwhile, Cpl Vincent, who was in the `Halal` section of the kitchen (marked `V` on the sketch plan), heard the commotion and ran out into the corridor. By then, Warder Jeganathan was already at the entrance of the annex (between doors D and E on the sketch map). Apprehending that the melee was a gang fight, Cpl Vincent turned back into the kitchen and raised the alarm from a buttom outside the office. He then returned to the corridor, by which time everything was over. According to Cpl Vincent, there was a lapse of approximately 30 seconds from the moment he heard the commotion to the sounding of the alarm. Reinforcement also came following the alarm. The respondent was taken to the prison hospital for treatment.

On that morning, the senior officer who was responsible for the kitchen was Tan Seng Hin. He was then at another part of the prison. He rushed to the scene upon hearing the alarm. By the time he arrived, the situation was under control.

The respondent suffered severe injuries to his hands as a result of the attack. The trial judge found that his left hand is now practically non-functional, and he has only about 70% use of his right hand.

Basis of claim

The basis of the respondent`s claim was in negligence and/or breach of duty on the part of the prison authorities in supervising the inmates. The trial judge held that there was such a breach of duty and he concluded thus:

34 ... It is my conclusion that in the circumstances which I have referred to, it was a breach of their duty of care for the prison authorities to allow the knives and choppers to be in the hands of the inmates when they were unsupervised, particularly in the light of a similar incident which had happened only a few months before. I think, on balance, one is justified in saying that the absence of supervision materially contributed to the severe injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Issues on appeal

The appellant has challenged the trial judge`s finding that the prison authorities were in breach of duty on the following main grounds:

(a) the trial judge erred in holding that there was a breach of duty of care to allow knives and choppers to be issued and/or used when there was only one prison officer present in the kitchen; and

(b) the trial judge erred on the issue of causation by holding that the respondent`s injuries were caused by the issuance and/or use of knives and choppers when there was only one prison officer in the kitchen.

In addition the appellant has also raised a preliminary objection that the trial judge erred in entering judgment against the Government without first making a specific finding that one or more officers were personally liable for the breach and the consequential injuries suffered by the respondent.

Direct liability or vicarious liability

We shall first deal with the preliminary objection which rests on ss 5 and 6(1) of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). Those two provisions read:

5 Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Government shall be liable for any wrongful act done or any neglect or default committed by any public officer in the same manner and to the same extent as that in which a principal, being a private person, is liable for any wrongful act done, or any neglect or default committed by his agent, and for the purposes of this section and without prejudice to the generality thereof, any public officer acting or purporting in good faith to be acting in pursuance of a duty imposed by law shall be deemed to be the agent of and to be acting under the instructions of the Government.

6(1) No proceedings shall lie against the Government by virtue of section 5 in respect of any act, neglect or default of any public officer, unless proceedings for damages in respect of such act, neglect or default would have lain against such officer personally.

What the appellant contends is that under these two provisions there must first be a specific finding of breach of duty on the part of a particular public officer or group of officers before the Government may be liable vicariously under the abovementioned sections. In this case, the trial judge made no such finding. The appellant urges this court that the judgment against the Government therefore had no proper basis. We set out below some passages from the appellant`s case where this argument is advanced:

47 There was no specific finding of fact by the...