7:10am Wednesday 14th July 2010
By Ian Mason
The Ministry of Justice has admitted a “breach of duty” after a salmonella outbreak struck down more than 370 inmates and staff at Wandsworth Prison.
Its admission means scores of claimants taking legal action against the Prison Service have moved a step closer to getting compensation.
The diarrhoea and sickness bug brought London’s justice system to a standstill last September, with all court appearances suspended for prisoners at Wandsworth.
The prison was effectively closed and the inmates were confined to their cells.
To begin with, the illness was thought to be swine flu as the timing coincided with last year’s epidemic - but officials from the Department of Health swiftly detected salmonella in samples taken from sick prisoners. They had fallen ill after eating egg cress rolls.
A Health Protection Agency (HPA) report released in March found that hundreds of raw eggs were pooled together and then cooked at an inadequate temperature and for an insufficient time.
According to Hodge, Jones & Allen LLP, which is representing 140 of the people who were affected, this meant that just one or two eggs containing salmonella contaminated the whole batch.
Simon O’Loughlin, the personal injury claims solicitor leading their case, said: “I’m not surprised there is an admission of breach of duty given the findings by the HPA and this is very good news for the people in this case as it moves us closer to reaching a settlement.
“However, salmonella food poisoning usually takes between 12 to 72 hours for symptoms to develop and many people were not tested because by the time they became ill the prison appears to have confirmed what the illness was and stopped testing people.
“We now need to move forward with all of these claims individually and see what the approach is going to be to those who became ill but weren’t tested for salmonella.”
A Prison Service spokesperson said: “Following an outbreak of food poisoning at HMP Wandsworth in September 2009, we have conceded a breach of duty in the preparation of the food concerned. It would be inappropriate to comment further as the matter remains subject to ongoing litigation.”
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/trade_directory/