Working inside a prison

Within a penitentiary institution, detainees can perform different types of work. This may include work in a workshop, tasks within the institution or production work for external clients. Under certain conditions, work can also take place outside the prison walls.

Although detention is not a typical employment situation, the work often closely resembles regular employment in practice. Tasks are performed, instructions are given, supervision is present and compensation is paid. This raises the question whether the State should also act like an employer and ensure a safe working environment.

Even within prison walls, work must be safe.

Why this matters legally

In employment law, employers have a far-reaching duty of care. In simple terms, this means they must ensure safe equipment, provide clear instructions and maintain proper supervision. If an accident occurs during work, the employer is often liable, unless it can prove that it fulfilled this duty.

For victims, this is crucial, because it significantly strengthens their evidential position. You mainly need to show that the injury occurred during work. It is then up to the employer to demonstrate why it should not be held liable.

If this duty of care also applies to the State in relation to detainee labour, it would provide much stronger protection for detainees who suffer injuries while working.

The Rotterdam case

In the case discussed, a detainee was working in the metal workshop. While grinding metal plates using a sanding machine, his left hand became trapped. He lost two fingers.

The detainee held the State liable and relied on the employer’s duty of care. The District Court of Rotterdam rejected the claim. According to the court, there was no employment contract, and the detainee did not fall within the scope of the provision that protects persons working without an employment contract. The court also found insufficient grounds for liability based on an unlawful act.

This was a harsh outcome. Someone fully dependent on the State for safe working conditions was left without compensation.

The court of appeal takes a different view

On appeal, the Court of Appeal of The Hague reached a different conclusion. It ruled that the State was liable because it had failed to ensure safe working conditions.

The court considered, among other things, that:

• it was unclear whether the machine had been properly checked beforehand

• insufficient instructions had been provided

• the responsibility for safe equipment primarily lies with the State

• it had not been demonstrated that the accident would have occurred even with proper instructions

Notably, the court used reasoning that closely resembles the employer’s duty of care. Concepts such as supervision, instruction, safe equipment and responsibility for the working environment played a central role. This shows that the court places significant weight on the principle of workplace safety.

Is this legally considered work

The key question is whether work performed during detention is sufficiently similar to regular employment to justify applying the employer’s duty of care.

There are strong arguments in favour of this. Detainees perform work that is useful and economically valuable for the institution or affiliated production companies. There is compensation, there are agreements, there is authority and there is an organised structure. In practice, this strongly resembles an employment relationship.

Even if this is not formally qualified as an employment contract, the law also protects individuals who perform work without such a contract but are in a similar dependent position. And that is exactly the case for detainees.

Why this matters for victims

For detainees who suffer injuries during work, this legal distinction is extremely important. If the duty of care applies, their evidential position is much stronger, making it easier to establish liability.

Without that protection, it becomes much more difficult. Much of the relevant information is held by the State. Think of:

• CCTV footage

• work schedules or agreements

• witness statements

• reports from the Labour Inspectorate

• internal incident reports

That is why it is essential to secure evidence as early as possible.

What this means for you

This case law shows that the State cannot simply avoid responsibility when a detainee is injured during work. Even within detention, working conditions must be safe. If they are not, liability may arise.

The key takeaway is that detainees who are injured at work should have their case properly assessed. Not only from a criminal law perspective, but also from a civil law perspective. That is often where real opportunities for compensation lie.