Ministry of Justice Submits Response Four Months After Being Sued Over 'Dongbu Detention Center Mass Infection'... "All COVID-19 Prevention Measures Were Implemented"

Characteristics of the Novel Infectious Disease COVID-19 and the Specificity of Detention Centers Mentioned... "Difficult to See Intent or Negligence"
Application for Reconsideration Dismissed by Panel... First Hearing Scheduled for the 15th of Next Month

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Ministry of Justice, which has been sued multiple times by inmates and their families due to a COVID-19 cluster infection incident at Seoul Eastern Detention Center, fully denied the detention center’s negligence such as ‘inadequate initial response’ in its first written response submitted belatedly four months after the complaint was filed.

In the response, the Ministry of Justice mentioned the characteristics of the novel infectious disease COVID-19 and the special circumstances of the detention center, stating that “all necessary measures were taken,” but fierce legal battles are expected as this contradicts the testimonies of many inmates and their families.

According to the legal community on the 26th, the Government Legal Service, representing the Ministry of Justice, submitted a written response on the 20th to the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 35 (single judge) regarding a damages claim lawsuit filed by nine individuals, including Mr. Lee (24), who was infected with COVID-19 while incarcerated at the Eastern Detention Center, against the Republic of Korea and then-Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae.

This was four months after the complaint was filed on January 20, which is considerably late considering that the court usually orders a written response to be submitted within one month of the complaint’s receipt.

Mr. Lee filed the lawsuit claiming 20 million KRW in compensation, stating that he was infected with COVID-19 after being housed with two other inmates in a cell where three out of five inmates had tested positive at the end of last year.

In the response, the Ministry of Justice rejected all claims made by inmates and their families regarding the Eastern Detention Center, including ▲inadequate initial response ▲failure to isolate close contacts ▲non-provision of masks ▲non-use of hot water ▲provision of inedible lunch boxes.

The Ministry stated, “Considering the unique characteristics of COVID-19, which is completely different from infectious diseases experienced by humanity so far, such as the virus shedding period, and the special circumstances of the detention center with extreme spatial constraints, the defendant did its best to comply with relevant laws and regulations in correctional administration and quarantine under the given conditions.”

It added, “It is difficult to see any violation of laws under the State Compensation Act or intentional or negligent acts by the responsible public officials, and most of the plaintiffs’ claims are either factually incorrect or based on misunderstandings, so the defendant cannot be held liable for damages.”

The argument is that it is difficult to acknowledge the detention center’s negligence given the characteristics of COVID-19, where the virus is shed before symptoms appear, and the limitations of ‘isolation’ in a confined facility.

Since the cluster infection incident at the Eastern Detention Center, which saw over 1,000 confirmed cases from late last year to early this year, multiple lawsuits against the Ministry of Justice are ongoing. Other trials have not yet been scheduled, and the Ministry’s responses have not been submitted.

Meanwhile, Park Jin-sik, a lawyer at the law firm Between representing this lawsuit, applied to the court to transfer the case to the same court’s 18th Civil Division (panel) for consolidated trial with another case involving 40 plaintiffs including other inmates and their families, but the request was denied. The first hearing is scheduled for the 15th of next month.

Lawyer Park said, “Since the issues and evidence are the same in both cases, and the panel had stated that if the case were transferred, the trials would be consolidated, I cannot understand why the transfer request was rejected,” adding, “I plan to request the transfer again at the hearing.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.