Risk v Northern Territory & Anor

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr Risk and the Northern Territory and its Chief Minister. Mr Risk sought to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained as a result of the Northern Territory's failure to provide him with adequate protection from a dangerous prisoner, Mr. X, while Mr. Risk was a prisoner in the custody of the Northern Territory. The core of the claim was that the Northern Territory owed Mr Risk a duty of care to protect him from foreseeable harm by other inmates, and that this duty had been breached.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Northern Territory owed Mr Risk a duty of care to protect him from harm inflicted by another prisoner, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Central to this determination was the question of whether the relationship between the Northern Territory and Mr Risk, as a prisoner in its custody, gave rise to a positive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to him from foreseeable risks, including those posed by other inmates. The Court also had to consider the scope of such a duty and whether the specific circumstances of Mr Risk's incarceration and the known risks associated with Mr X established a breach.

The Court ultimately held that the Northern Territory did owe a duty of care to Mr Risk to take reasonable steps to protect him from foreseeable harm, including harm from other prisoners. This duty arose from the special relationship of custody between the state and a prisoner, which imposes a responsibility for the prisoner's safety. However, the Court found that the Northern Territory had not breached this duty. The Court reasoned that while the risk of harm from Mr X was known, the steps taken by the prison authorities were reasonable in the circumstances, and the specific attack was not reasonably foreseeable in its timing or nature. The Court emphasised that a duty to take reasonable care does not equate to a duty to guarantee safety, and that the foreseeability of the precise harm was a critical factor in determining breach.

The High Court dismissed Mr Risk's appeal.