Burke v State of Queensland & Ors

The applicants, Mr. Burke and his wife, sought to recover damages from the State of Queensland and two of its employees for alleged breaches of duty of care. The dispute arose from the State's failure to provide adequate security at a correctional centre where Mr. Burke was a prisoner. He claimed to have suffered serious injuries as a result of an assault by another inmate, which he alleged was a foreseeable consequence of the State's negligence in managing the correctional facility. The matter was heard by Kiefel and Nettle JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the State of Queensland owed a duty of care to prisoners to protect them from foreseeable harm caused by other inmates, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The applicants contended that the State had failed to implement reasonable security measures, thereby exposing Mr. Burke to an unacceptable risk of injury. The respondents argued that while a duty of care might exist, the specific circumstances of the assault did not establish a breach, and that the actions of the other inmate were an intervening cause.

Kiefel and Nettle JJ affirmed that a duty of care is owed by correctional authorities to prisoners to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable risks of harm, including those posed by other inmates. Their Honours found that the State had failed to discharge this duty. The evidence demonstrated that the State was aware of the volatile nature of the inmate population and the specific risks associated with the unit where Mr. Burke was housed. Despite this knowledge, inadequate staffing levels and a failure to implement established security protocols meant that the risk of such an assault was not reasonably mitigated. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of the harm and the reasonableness of the steps taken (or not taken) by the State to prevent it.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the State had breached its duty of care to Mr. Burke. The matter was remitted to the trial court for the assessment of damages.