tort of negligent investigation

Introduction As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority. Tort of Negligent Investigation General speaking, a tort of negligence is a failure of someone or one party to follow a standard of care which means failed to do what a reasonable person do or do what a reasonable personal would not do. From the interest perspective, the tort of negligent investigation is an offence against private interest of an individual, corporation or government due to the negligent investigation. Whether a tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada is related to whether investigators owe a duty of care to person being investigated and what is the standard of care. Finally, a tort of negligent investigation only exist when there is a loss or injury to the suspect and the loss or injury was caused by the negligent investigation. While the police officers have rights to investigate suspect, the duty of care of the officers to suspect exist and the officers were under a legal obligation to exercise care for Mr. Hill. ... ... middle of paper ... ... be found in Mr. Hill’s case given he position set out by the majority judgement in this case. Conclusion When police officers investigate suspect, especially a criminal suspect, public interest was against and officers owe a duty of care to general public for the purpose of public safety. Meanwhile, private interest was against as well and officers owe a duty of care to suspect to ensure suspect’s rights and avoid charging innocent person. In order to balance these two conflict interests, a clear standard of care need to be established so police officers could follow the procedures to prevent negligent investigation. Reference Boyd, N. (2010). Canadian law: An introduction. Cengage Learning. Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129.Retrieved from: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2382/index.do