F v MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Vicarious liability and state accountability for the criminal acts of police officers

Heidi Barnes

doi:10.17159/2413-3108/2014/v0i47a803

Abstract

The Constitutional Court judgement in F v Minister of Safety and Securityis a ground-breaking judgement in two important respects: firstly, it finally does away with the fiction that an employee acts within the course and scope of her employment in the so-called deviation cases in the law of vicarious liability, and secondly it clarifies the normative basis for holding the state vicariously liable for the criminal acts of police officers. In this latter respect it significantly promotes state accountability for the criminal acts of police officers.

Highlights

Ma rch 2014 use of the police car had facilitated the rape
The Court held that these factors established a sufficiently close connection between the criminal conduct of the police officer and his employment to justify holding the Minister liable for the damages suffered by Ms F
This article will begin by setting out the principles of vicarious liability as they have traditionally existed in our common law

Summary

Introduction

Ma rch 2014 use of the police car had facilitated the rape. the 13-year-old girl, Ms F, had identified him as a police officer by virtue of the police dockets and the police radio in the car, and had trusted him as a result. The Court held that these factors established a sufficiently close connection between the criminal conduct of the police officer and his employment to justify holding the Minister liable for the damages suffered by Ms F.

Results

Conclusion