*Minister of Safety and Security v Carmichele Flashcards
(21 cards)
What failure by the police officer and prosecutor formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claim in delict?
Their failure to oppose bail for an accused person charged with rape.
What happened after the accused (‘C’) was released on bail?
C assaulted the plaintiff before the trial.
What did the plaintiff allege in the claim for damages?
That the negligent failure to oppose bail was a delict committed within the course of employment.
Was it disputed that the police officer and prosecutor acted within the scope of their employment?
No, it was undisputed.
What was the legal issue regarding the conduct of the police officer and prosecutor?
Whether their failure to oppose bail constituted delicts against the plaintiff.
What was the specific question regarding causation in this case?
Whether the negligence in failing to oppose bail caused the plaintiff’s harm.
What did the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) find regarding the failure to oppose bail?
The SCA found the failure to oppose bail was negligent.
Did the police officer and prosecutor owe a legal duty to the plaintiff?
Yes, they owed a duty not to cause harm through negligent failures.
Is breach of duty alone sufficient to establish delictual liability?
No, the breach must also have caused the plaintiff’s harm.
What causation test did the Constitutional Court introduce?
An objective test asking whether a reasonable magistrate would have granted bail if opposition had been made.
According to the Constitutional Court’s test, when is harm causally linked to negligence?
When a reasonable magistrate would not have granted bail had there been opposition.
What was the SCA’s approach to causation in this case?
The SCA focused on what the actual magistrate would likely have decided, not merely on what a reasonable magistrate should have done.
What is presumed about magistrates when assessing causation?
That magistrates act reasonably, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
What kind of evidence is inadmissible to rebut the presumption of judicial reasonableness?
Post-decision statements by the magistrate.
Was there evidence in Carmichele to suggest the magistrate acted irrationally?
No, there was no such evidence.
How might the Constitutional Court’s and the SCA’s causation tests lead to different outcomes?
The Constitutional Court’s objective test may find liability where the SCA’s focus on the actual magistrate would not.
What is a novus actus interveniens in this context?
The court order releasing the accused, which might be viewed as an intervening act breaking the causal chain.
Was factual causation established despite the possibility of a novus actus interveniens?
Yes, it was undisputed that but for the negligence, the harm would not have occurred.
What did the court find was the probable outcome if bail had been opposed?
That bail would likely have been refused or set at an unaffordable high amount.
Would the magistrate have likely released the accused with a warning?
No, the magistrate would probably not have done so.
What was the court’s final conclusion on causation?
Factual causation between the negligence and the plaintiff’s harm was established.
