FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,753 times | Saved to 301 briefcases
Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41

Facts:

Hill, an aboriginal man who was wrongly convicted of a crime. Police knew of other crimes going on by same type of suspect, while aboriginal man was in custody. Police sent a photo of Hill to the media, put out other information about him. Police put him in a line up with Caucasians. Hill spent 20 months in jail, was eventually found innocent and released.

Hill sued the police for negligence: for breaching their duty of care to him.

Issue(s):

1. Do the police have a duty of care to their suspects? If so, was the standard of care upheld?
2. Is there a tort of negligent investigation?

Ratio:

1. The police have a duty of care to their suspects.
2. There is such a thing as a tort of negligent investigation.

Analysis:

1. Yes, the police have a duty of care to their suspects, but the standard of care was upheld by police. Therefore, appeal dismissed.

2. Yes, there is a tort of negligent investigation.

Holding:

Appeal dismissed against.

Comments:

Dissent: no tort of negligent investigation


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.