Minister of Police v Ewels
Source 📝
27:
104:. It expresses a general rule: An omission is to be regarded as unlawful conduct when the circumstances of the case are of such a nature not only that the omission incites moral indignation, but also that the legal convictions of the community demand that it be regarded as unlawful and that the damage suffered be made good by the person who neglected to perform a positive act. In order to make a determination as to whether or not there is unlawfulness, therefore, the question is not whether there was the usual "negligence" of the
172:
121:, a citizen was assaulted in a police station by an off-duty officer in the presence of other officers. It was held by the court, on the facts of this case, that a policeman on duty, if he witnesses an assault, has a duty to come to the assistance of the person being assaulted. The failure of the police to do so made the Minister of Police liable for damages.
213:
247:
56:
242:
206:
252:
232:
199:
78:
49:
108:; the question is whether, regard being had to all the facts, there was a duty in law to act reasonably.
135:
97:
130:
101:
237:
151:
39:
187:
43:
35:
60:
8:
179:
113:
183:
226:
171:
224:
48:but its sources remain unclear because it lacks
207:
214:
200:
79:Learn how and when to remove this message
248:Appellate Division (South Africa) cases
225:
166:
20:
96:, is an important case in both the
13:
14:
264:
170:
25:
243:South African criminal case law
1:
141:
253:South African case law stubs
186:. You can help Knowledge by
148:Minister van Polisie v Ewels
7:
136:South African law of delict
124:
98:South African law of delict
10:
269:
165:
131:South African criminal law
102:South African criminal law
93:Minister of Police v Ewels
233:1975 in South African law
178:This article relating to
100:and, to a lesser extent,
180:case law in South Africa
158:
34:This article includes a
16:South African legal case
63:more precise citations.
106:bonus paterfamilias
112:Saflii Court case
36:list of references
195:
194:
89:
88:
81:
260:
238:1975 in case law
216:
209:
202:
174:
167:
84:
77:
73:
70:
64:
59:this article by
50:inline citations
29:
28:
21:
268:
267:
263:
262:
261:
259:
258:
257:
223:
222:
221:
220:
163:
161:
144:
127:
85:
74:
68:
65:
54:
40:related reading
30:
26:
17:
12:
11:
5:
266:
256:
255:
250:
245:
240:
235:
219:
218:
211:
204:
196:
193:
192:
175:
160:
157:
156:
155:
143:
140:
139:
138:
133:
126:
123:
116:
115:
87:
86:
44:external links
33:
31:
24:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
265:
254:
251:
249:
246:
244:
241:
239:
236:
234:
231:
230:
228:
217:
212:
210:
205:
203:
198:
197:
191:
189:
185:
181:
176:
173:
169:
168:
164:
153:
149:
146:
145:
137:
134:
132:
129:
128:
122:
120:
114:
111:
110:
109:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
83:
80:
72:
62:
58:
52:
51:
45:
41:
37:
32:
23:
22:
19:
188:expanding it
177:
162:
147:
118:
117:
105:
92:
91:
90:
75:
66:
55:Please help
47:
18:
61:introducing
227:Categories
142:References
150:1975 (3)
154:590 (A).
125:See also
69:May 2013
119:In casu
57:improve
182:is a
159:Notes
42:, or
184:stub
229::
152:SA
46:,
38:,
215:e
208:t
201:v
190:.
82:)
76:(
71:)
67:(
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
↑