A former inmate has become one of the first people to bring a personal injury claim against the Department of Home Affairs after he was the victim of a ‘prison napalm’ attack.

Paul Sunday Akinmurele suffered serious injuries after another inmate threw boiling sugared water over him.

He is believed to be one of the first prisoners or former prisoners to pursue a negligence claim against the Department of Home Affairs.

Mr Akinmurele brought civil proceedings after he was assaulted by fellow prisoner Stefan Proverbs at the Isle of Man Prison on October 19, 2019.

In a judgment handed down this week, Deemster John Needham said he was unaware of a similar Manx case that could assist his ruling and instead relied on case law from England and Wales.

He said: ‘I am not aware of any previous personal injury case alleging such a breach of the duty of care brought by any prisoner or former prisoner in the Isle of Man.’

Despite the groundbreaking claim, Deemster Needham ultimately dismissed it, ruling that although the assault ‘should not have occurred’, the court was not satisfied prison staff had breached their duty of care.

Proverbs was later jailed for eight years for the attack, along with an extended five-year licence period, after being convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

The deemster described the incident as ‘a serious assault involving the claimant being scalded with sugared hot water and suffering other physical injuries including a broken eye socket’.

Akinmurele, who represented himself during the hearing, argued prison staff failed to act despite months of bullying and friction between himself and Proverbs before the attack.

The DHA denied negligence, maintaining staff had correctly followed prison procedures and that the assault could not reasonably have been foreseen.

The judgment examined prison records, anti-bullying reports and witness evidence from prison officers.

The court heard there had been tension between the two prisoners throughout 2019, including arguments, intimidation and reports of bullying.

However, mediation later took place between the pair and Deemster Needham found prison officers genuinely believed the situation had been resolved by that stage.

The court accepted that Proverbs had a significant history of violence and that prison staff were aware of his background.

However, Deemster Needham said: ‘There was no indication of any serious or imminent risk that the claimant would be subject to an assault.

‘Proverbs was cunning, hiding his intentions from the prison staff and planning the assault to occur in a way that his actions would not be easily detectable by staff prior to the assault.’

He also rejected allegations that staffing levels on the prison wing were inadequate, adding: ‘It is unreasonable to expect officers to be able to watch individual prisoners all the time.’

Deemster Needham concluded: ‘It has not been established on the balance of probabilities that the defendant breached its duty of care to keep the claimant reasonably safe while in prison.’

Although the claim was dismissed, the deemster criticised aspects of the prison’s anti-bullying procedures and record-keeping.

Despite dismissing the case, the deemster said: ‘I had considerable sympathy for him regarding the assault he suffered, which of course should not have occurred.’