SUSHILA RANI A/P RAMASAMY v 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA 3. ) Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Penjara Kluang

Case Significance

Instructive on the requirement of a foreseeable risk of harm in a negligence claim against a prison authority for a death in custody, and on the appellate court's restraint where the trial judge's findings on liability are not plainly wrong.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns a dependency claim in negligence arising from a death in prison custody, and the requirement of a foreseeable risk of harm. The appellant, the grandmother of the deceased and suing as his dependant, had brought a claim against the prison authority in the tort of negligence and against the Government and the Minister of Home Affairs on the basis of vicarious liability, after the deceased, who had been convicted of gang robbery and sentenced to imprisonment, was found dead in prison while in the custody and control of the prison authority. The High Court, after a full trial, found that the prison authority was not negligent or liable for the death of the deceased while under its custody, and the appellant appealed. The court, comprising Ravinthran a/l N. Paramaguru, Choo Kah Sing and Ahmad Kamal bin Md Shahid JJCA, dismissed the appeal. The salient facts included that, shortly before his death, the deceased had been found in possession of illicit drugs in prison and, pending investigation, had been placed in an isolated cell. The court addressed the appellant's complaint that no doctor or medical personnel had been present at the prison that night, finding the evidence of the assistant medical officer compelling: he explained that even had he been present, he could not be sure of resuscitating the deceased, because on the deceased's condition a person has only a window of some four to five minutes' survival chance, after which irreversible brain death, considered biological death, would follow, and that even cardiopulmonary resuscitation could not have revived him. Considering the other issues raised to be immaterial and unable to affect the main findings, the court agreed with the High Court judge, holding that his reasoning and findings did not fall into error in law or fact and were not plainly wrong, so that the appeal had no merit. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment is instructive on the requirement of a foreseeable risk of harm in a negligence claim against a prison authority for a death in custody.