Can you sue the goverment as a victim of crime?

[armitage]

Idea that just hatched in my little head.

When you get robbed/hijacked/raped whatever as a private citizen can you sue the goverment for your medical and psychologist bill?
The reason I think the goverment can be sued is that they are failing on their mandate to provide a safe enviroment for us as citizens to live in leading to a perpetual race to try and curb the next attack, rape or assault.

What does the constitution say about our safety and security?

12. Freedom and security of the person

1. Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right *
1. not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
2. not to be detained without trial;
3. to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;
4. not to be tortured in any way; and
5. not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.

http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm

If the goverment can't ensure that you benefit from your right to safety then it must be held accountable, yes?

Likely scenario
A robber enters my home fully intending to steal all my goods. He finds my wife and kids in the house and proceeds to abuse them.
I enter the home and in an act of self defence i shoot the robber while being wounded myself. We both have the same injuries.
I have to foot the bill for my injury by myself which can lead into multiple R10k's whereas the robber who is in precisely the same health situation as me gets free medical care so that he can be fit for a trial(constitutionally protected right).

Why must we have to pay for medical assistance when the criminal gets it for free?

I think the health providers must also enter the fray here and side with the public against the goverment.
How much money will discovery, genesis, gems and all the other medical aids save if they can claim back the money that they had to pay for a members crime victim hospital bills from the goverment and not out of their own coffers?

For once us the average joe and the medical aid big boys have a common enemy. The goverment can't deliver on its mandate for security for all its people. So it must be taken to task for its failing until it can provide this constutionally ensured right.


What has happened in the past?
People against the goverment to provide anti retrovirals. The people won.
People against metrorail(goverment) to provide visible security on trains. The people won.


So what do you all think about this?
Is there a case for getting the goverment to pay for your losses as a direct result of your constituional right "to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources" being denied?

[sox63]

Knock yourself out Dude, I sure hope you have deep pockets to fight this battle. Even if you win will you be awareded a reasonable amount of money?

[Gothan]

Yes you can, couple of people have done it, and some of them have even succeeded, but like said before, it will cost you. The government does not like other people which are not on the gravy train robbing them of money that they themselves can get through corruption

[Debbie]

More interesting- if you're a victim of crime stop paying taxes. The government has failed to keep their end of the deal to provide security of person, you no longer have to keep your end by paying taxes :p Now, to prove deliberate negligence on the part of the government...

[armitage]

The point i am trying to make is that the public has before and can get the goverment to act. Why? becuase its cheaper for them to address the problem than fighting all the class action lawsuits from the victims of crime.

I as a private person can't afford to fight this battle.
Action groups like TAG have successfully in the past taken the goverment to task for its failings iro HIV/AIDS treatment.

South African crime victims have to band together to do this. Funding for the court case(it will understandably be quite a long one) could potentially be sourced from victims as well as interested parties like Medical aid schemes. Since it directly affects their bottom line to pay for your medical bills as a crime victim.


If you were shot the medical bills would run into the higher tens of thousands of rands. If the victims of crime win the case the potential cost for goverment would be quite a substantial amount of money.

Just as a taster of the amount of people affect by crime look no further than the recently released stats on crime in za.

From the Saps crime stats for 2006/07.
Assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm = 218,030
Burglary at residential premises = 249,665
Attempted murder = 20,142
Rape = 52,617

http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/crimestats/2007/_pdf/rsa_total.pdf


Needless to say the goverment will fall back and say that they can't stop people from hurting each other, but if they do say that then they have to remove the right of security in the constitution?

[Leitmotif]

Police service

205(3) The objects of the police service are to prevent, combat and
investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the
inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce
the law."

But of course they'll insist it's not their job.

[Pitbull]

This has happened before the the victims won the cases...

Just google it. Can't get it now.

[NoADSLyet]

With the GOV sitting in the legal bench you have a honorable cause but no chance

[Moederloos]

Can one sue a MP personally in the small claims court?

[Debbie]

Can one sue a MP personally in the small claims court?

No. I believe governmental bodies and their reps are immune from small claims court, plus small claims = to do with commerce.
Also, MPs not tied to constituencies.

[Pitbull]

I found 1.

Just to much searching for this time of the afternoon.

I know the plaintiff won the case but need to find that Judgement. Might take a few hours. It was in to many courts. :o

Carmichele vs Minister of Safety and Security (http://www.google.co.za/search?q=Carmichele+v+Minister+of+Safety+and+Secur ity+%26+Another+2001&hl=en&cr=countryZA&start=20&sa=N)

[armitage]

Interesting case Pitbull.


Since the Ewels judgment there have been numerous further examples particularly of the State being held liable for omissions. The best known of these was the recent case of Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security & Another 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC). In that case the plaintiff, Carmichele was assaulted by one Coetzee. Coetzee had a history of violence and sexual assault. Prior to the assault he had been arrested on a separate charge of rape. Concerned women in the small community in which both Carmichele and Coetzee lived had made pleas to the police and the prosecutor that he be remanded in custody for the duration of the criminal trial. They feared that he would victimise other women if released on bail. Notwithstanding his violent track record, the investigating officer recommended to the prosecutor that he be released on warning. Whilst awaiting trial on the charge of rape, Coetzee assaulted Carmichele. The Minister was found to be delictually liable to Carmichele on the basis of the wrongful failure by the prosecutor to have proper regard to the information which was placed before him concerning Coetzee’s background and to have him kept in detention.

http://www.deneysreitz.co.za/seminars/item/a_consideration_of_the_limitations_of_the_states_l iability_for_omissions_,326.html

[caramel]

goodluck! its going to cost you alot of money!