Man convicted of manslaughter loses action over prison assault

A MAN who completed a prison sentence for manslaughter has lost his action for damages over what a High Court judge yesterday…

A MAN who completed a prison sentence for manslaughter has lost his action for damages over what a High Court judge yesterday described as a “vicious assault” on him by two other prisoners.

Michael Sage claimed the attack occurred at Fort Mitchel Prison, Cork, formerly known as Spike Island, on the second day of his imprisonment in 2002 because a fellow accused believed he had “grassed” on him.

Arising from the assault, Sage, with an address at Glenacre, Killaloe, Co Clare, brought proceedings against the Minister for Justice, the governor of Cork prison and the Attorney General.

Sage was sentenced on July 26th, 2002, to ten years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended, for the manslaughter of John Carroll (21), Cappamore, Co Limerick, on December 4th, 1998. Sage had admitted manslaughter but denied murder.

READ MORE

Another man, William Roche, of Millstream, Killaloe, Co Clare, was tried separately and convicted of the murder of Mr Carroll. During their trials, Sage and Roche had made claims against each other over the fatal assault.

In evidence to the High Court, Sage said that on remand in Limerick Prison his bed was set on fire and he believed the attack was orchestrated by Roche because he believed Sage had “grassed” on him. After he was sentenced in July 2002, Sage said he was taken to Mountjoy Prison, where he told the authorities he wanted protective custody as Roche was on an upper floor of the prison. This was afforded to him immediately.

He was then transferred to Fort Mitchel and believed he would remain in protective custody. However, on his second day there he was attacked in the exercise yard, he said. He suffered injuries to his back, scalp, right flank and a hand.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Mary Irvine said an assistant chief officer at the prison had said she had never received any communication indicating Sage had concerns for his safety there. The judge said she was satisfied the defendants had not breached their duty of care to Sage. The defendants were not, and could not be expected to be, insurers of their prisoners’ safety.