Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/4/3/1191

HOUSE OF LORDS

THE HOME OFFICE

v.
THE DORSET YACHT COMPANY LIMITED

Lord Reid

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gcst

Viscount Dilhorne

Lord Pearson

Lord Reid

my lords,

On 21st September 1962 a party of Borstal trainees were working on
1 Brownsea Island in Poole Harbour under the supervision and control of
three Borstal officers. During that night seven of them escaped and went
aboard a yacht which they found nearby. They set this yacht in motion
and collided with the Respondents' yacht which was moored in the vicinity.
Then they boarded the Respondents' yacht. Much damage was done to this
yacht by the collision and some by the subsequent conduct of these trainees.
The Respondents sue the Appellants, the Home Office, for the amount of
(his damage.

The case comes before your Lordships on a preliminary issue whether the
Home Office or these Borstal officers owed any duty of care to the
Respondents capable of giving rise to a liability in damages. So it must
he assumed that the Respondents can prove all that they could prove on the
pleadings if the case goes to trial. The question then is whether on that
assumption the Home Office would be liable in damages. It is admitted
that the Home Office would be vicariously liable if an action would lie
against any of these Borstal officers.

The facts which I think we must assume are that this party of trainees
were in the lawful custody of the Governor of the Portland Borstal Institution
and were sent by him to Brownsea Island on a training exercise in the
custody and under the control of the three officers with instructions to keep
them in custody and under control. But in breach of their instructions these
officers simply went to bed leaving the trainees to their own devices. If they
had obeyed their instructions they could and would have prevented these
trainees from escaping. They would therefore be guilty of the disciplinary
offences of contributing by carelessness or neglect to the escape of a prisoner
and to the occurrence of loss, damage or injury to any person or property.
All the escaping trainees had criminal records and five of them had a record
of previous escapes from Borstal institutions. The three officers knew or
ought to have known that these trainees would probably try to escape during
the night, would take some vessel to make good their escape and would
probably cause damage to it or some other vessel. There were numerous
vessels moored in the harbour, and the trainees could readily board one of
them. So it was a likely consequence of their neglect of duty that the
Respondents' yacht would suffer damage.

The case for the Home Office is that under no circumstances can Borstal
officers owe any duty to any member of the public to take care to prevent
trainees under their control or supervision from injuring him or his property.
If that is the law then enquiry into the…