August 19, 2020
Breaking any of our lockdown laws can be an expensive business, risking heavy penalties.
If you are accused of a contravention and offered the option of paying an “admission of guilt” fine to avoid a court appearance, beware! It may seem like the easy way out to pay up and put the whole thing behind you but it could land you with a criminal record.
You really don’t want to have a criminal record!
Having a criminal record comes with serious and lifelong negative consequences. Even an old and long-forgotten minor offence can hang around in the background until it suddenly pops up at the worst possible times – such as when you apply for a travel visa or a new job.
When are you most at risk?
The general rule is that you will acquire a criminal record if you are arrested, if the police open a docket and take fingerprints, and if you are thereafter convicted of a crime.
The problem with admission of guilt fines is that they may well leave you with a “deemed” conviction and sentence which will end up in the CRC (SAPS Criminal Record Centre) database. Although there was talk in the past of the CRC capturing convictions with just your name and I.D. number the main risk seems to still be in having your fingerprints taken.
It’s not easy to get rid of a criminal record
And once you have a criminal record, it’s not easy to get rid of it.
- Firstly, you can apply for “expungement” of the record to remove it from the CRC database, but that option is only available to you after 10 years and for certain “minor offences”. It will also take a long time to process – “20 – 28 weeks” per SAPS. Note that some specified minor convictions fall away automatically after 10 years – ask for specific advice.
- Secondly, you could ask a court to set aside your conviction and sentence – costly, not quick and not guaranteed to succeed.
- Thirdly, you could hope that planned amendments to our criminal procedure laws will retrospectively come to your aid – speculative and not yet in the pipeline.
The bottom line – if you are offered the option of paying an admission of guilt fine, ask for advice before you accept!
August 22, 2019
Why yet another warning about cyber-scams in the property industry? It’s because the hard fact is that the criminals are winning this war. In fact we are now reportedly the “second most targeted country in the world with regard to cyber-attacks” (Law Society of South Africa).
Hence, no doubt, the Legal Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund report of “over 110 cybercrime related claims with a total value of R70m” in the period July 2016 to August 2018.
The scammers are using more and more sophisticated techniques to lull their victims into complacency, and your best protection is your own vigilance – forewarned is definitely forearmed!
And remember that property transactions will always remain a firm favourite with online fraudsters for two simple reasons –
- Property sales usually involve large amounts of money.
- Electronic communication between attorneys and clients is a fertile ground for interception and deception.
How your money gets taken – 2 main scenarios
Cyber criminals are resourceful, creative and constantly updating their methods so this is by no means an exhaustive list of your risk areas. To date however the two main categories of scam remain –
- Your attorney’s payments to you: As a seller, when you give the transfer instruction to your attorney you will nominate a bank account – account A in this example – to receive the sale proceeds. Before transfer however (often at the very last minute) the conveyancing firm receives a genuine-looking email “from you” changing your banking details to “my new account, account B”. Your emails to and from your attorney have been intercepted, and your details cleverly spoofed. Your money is gone – forever. Of course if you chose the right attorney to attend to your transfer in the first place this shouldn’t happen to you – but, as we shall see below, the scammers are so sophisticated now that you can never ever let your guard down, no matter how trustworthy the firm.
- Your payments to the attorney: The main risk here is to the buyer paying the whole or a large portion of the purchase price to the transferring attorney. Of course transfer duty and other costs of transfer can also add up to a tidy sum, whilst as a seller you will be paying for things like bond cancellation costs, rates, agent’s commission and so on.The scam here is that once again emails are intercepted, and this time you receive an authentic-looking but entirely fraudulent email asking you to pay into “account C”. The email appears to come from the conveyancing firm but of course it is again a clever (often very sophisticated) impersonation, this time of the firm’s branding, details and email address.The false account details might be in the email itself or in a falsified attachment – nothing is safe. The email may be in the form of a “we’ve changed our banking details” notification, or the criminal may work on the basis that you just won’t notice the change. And of course account C isn’t the conveyancer’s trust account at all, and the minute you make a payment into it your money is – once again – gone forever.
Who can you recover your loss from?
By the time you realise you have been duped, the criminals are long gone and your chances of catching up with them are remote to say the least.
So could the attorney possibly be liable? A recent High Court judgment deals with that very issue…
Court: Attorney negligent, must pay
In this case a transferring attorney was ordered to pay her client damages of almost R1m for negligence.
In a nutshell, the attorney had attended to a property transfer for the sellers, and a scammer intercepted emails between the sellers and the attorney’s secretary. This was a classic “Scenario 1” operation, and seemingly a sophisticated one – the scammer persuaded the secretary to accept an emailed “my bank account details have changed” instruction and to pay the proceeds into the scammer’s account.
The sellers sued the attorney for damages, the attorney denied any negligence whatsoever, but the Court found that she had indeed failed to carry out her mandate with the “due care, skill and diligence expected of a reasonable attorney and a conveyancer in the circumstances.”
What is important for you is that the Court reached this conclusion on the particular facts of this matter. There were specific factors present here such that a “diligent, reasonable attorney” would, said the Court, have taken steps to verify the information in the fraudulent emails.
That suggests that there are many possible sets of facts which would have left the seller unable to prove any failure of duty by the attorney. Your risk is that if you try to hold the attorney liable you will have to prove that your loss resulted from his/her fault and not from yours – that’s never going to be easy and if you fail, you are left high and dry.
Protect yourself. Be vigilant!
So prevention really is much better than cure here. Litigation will be expensive and risky, and even if you succeed in your damages claim the attorney’s normal indemnity insurance excludes these types of claims so your victory could be a hollow one.
Fortunately there are several common sense steps you can take to minimise your risk –
- If you have the choice of transferring attorney (which you normally would have if you are the seller), choose an attorney you trust to do the job properly, carefully and professionally.
- Having said that, no matter how much security your attorneys have put in place on their side, if it is your system that is vulnerable that is what the criminals will exploit. So keep all your anti-virus, anti-malware and other security software updated, learn all about protecting yourself from malware/spyware/phishing attacks, and generally treat all electronic communications with caution – even those appearing to come from a trusted source like your attorney.
- Read “Is That Sender For Real? Three Ways to Verify the Identity of An Email” on FRSecure’s blog. All the tips given there are important, but at the very least use the methods given to find out where the email really comes from. Then check back to see that it matches in every detail the email address you were given at the start of the transfer process.
- Be suspicious if anything in an email just feels “not-quite-right” – perhaps only a cell phone number is given, or a free generic email address (like Gmail) is used, or the wording is somehow “off”. If the email makes you even the slightest bit uneasy, err on the side of caution and investigate further.
- Most importantly, never accept notification of any supposed change in your attorney’s banking details without visiting or phoning your attorney to check all is in order (don’t of course use the contact details given in the suspicious email, they could also have been doctored!).
March 19, 2019
“We must not make a scarecrow of the law” (Shakespeare)
A criminal record, even for a minor offence from decades back, comes with very serious and lifetime consequences. It will hang around forever, just waiting to ambush you when you apply for a job, or a travel visa, or a firearm licence.
So acquiring a record inadvertently is the stuff of nightmares, and the question is whether you can land yourself in that position by paying an admission of guilt fine? The reality is that we are beset by so many laws and regulations covering every aspect of our lives that most of us have paid admission of guilt fines at one time or another. Usually it’s just to avoid having to defend ourselves in the unpredictability and delay of an over-burdened court system. Sometimes it’s the more serious matter of avoiding a stay in a police cell.
A remedy, but it’s not ideal
The remedy, once you do have a record, is to apply for “expungement” of the record to remove it from the CRC (SAPS’ Criminal Record Centre)’s database. Expungement is however only available to you after 10 years and for certain “minor offences” – plus your application will take a long time to process (“20 – 28 weeks” per SAPS). Note that some specified minor convictions fall away automatically after 10 years – ask for specific advice.
All in all, prevention is very definitely better than cure.
When are you at risk?
- You will acquire a criminal record if you are arrested, if the police open a docket and take fingerprints, and if you are thereafter convicted of a crime.
- Does that apply to admission of guilt fines? Firstly, with traffic offences find out what section of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) is involved. Minor offences – speeding, licence offences, illegal parking and the like are normally “Section 341/Schedule 3” offences, where there is no actual prosecution and therefore no criminal record to end up in the CRC.
- Other offences however will likely be dealt with as “Section 57/57A” offences. An admission of guilt in those cases lands you with a “deemed” conviction and sentence, and until recently, that deemed conviction and sentence could well have ended up in the CRC database. In practice you would probably still have been in the clear if you weren’t actually arrested and fingerprinted, but several years ago there was talk of convictions being captured with just a name and ID number. If you want to be sure, apply for a clearance certificate – see “Applying for a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC)” on the SAPS website.
- A “Section 56 Written Notice to Appear in Court” may also give you the option of paying an admission of guilt fine to avoid appearance in court – in which event section 57 would apply as above.
- The point though is that a recent High Court decision means that any admission of guilt fine – even a section 57/57A one and even after an arrest and fingerprinting – should not lumber you with a “permanent conviction”.
In other words, the new position is that while a court-imposed conviction and sentence will end up in the CRC, an admission of guilt fine should not.
Let’s illustrate with a look at the case of the roadside grass seller…
A grass seller’s R500 admission of guilt fine comes back to haunt him
- In 2010 a roadside seller of instant grass quarreled with another grass seller about use of a particular spot on the road. The other seller laid assault charges against him, alleging he slapped her twice and pushed her.
- Arrested, detained and fingerprinted, the accused paid a R500 admission of guilt fine when given the option to do so. Per standard procedure a magistrate then “examined” the documents and the accused’s “deemed” assault conviction and sentence were entered firstly into the court’s record books and then into the CRC database.
- The accused learned of his criminal record for the first time when in 2018 he applied to become an Uber driver (a police clearance certificate being an Uber requirement).
- He turned to the High Court to set aside his conviction and sentence on the basis that he thought signing the admission of guilt was his only way of obtaining release from custody and that his rights had not been explained to him. Effectively he denied the assault, and took the chance that the State might still decide to pursue the prosecution in court.
- The Court set aside our grass seller’s conviction and sentence, characterising this type of admission of guilt as “not a verdict” but rather “essentially an agreement between the State and the accused” intended only for “trivial offences”, and involving no consideration as to “whether the accused was in fact and in law guilty of the offence”.
- The Court: “A conviction and sentence following an entry into the admission of guilt record book by the clerk of the criminal court in the magistrates’ court is not a conviction whose record is permanent” nor “to be entered in the Criminal Record System”.
The bottom line
The Court found that this accused had been pressured into admitting guilt and ordered that the Minister of Police be served with a copy of its order with a view to taking advice from the Commissioner of Police in “devising policy to address the criticism that the SAPS use arrest and detention to force vulnerable members of society who fear being locked up, to admit guilt on petty crimes using arrest and the threat of continued detention.”
But even once such a new policy emerges, be careful here and have your lawyer advise you in the slightest doubt.
January 17, 2019
“… it is necessary for an unequivocal message to be sent out that corruption on the part of politicians, especially those holding high office, will not be tolerated and that punishment for those who act as Mr Block has done in this case will be severe” (extract from SCA case below)
We are all of us tired of reading about the rampant corruption in our society, and even if you aren’t one of the many businesses or individuals directly affected, everyone is ultimately a victim.
Let’s take heart then from two recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decisions.
Firstly, to set the scene…
Minimum sentences for corruption
- Corruption in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act is an offence which, when more than R500,000 is involved, carries a minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, even for first offenders, “unless there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying a lesser sentence”.
- The R500k threshold is reduced to R100k where a “common conspiracy” is at play and to only R10k where a law enforcement officer is involved.
- Confiscation orders are also common, being designed to deprive criminals of the benefits of their corruption. In the case below for example, a R60m confiscation order (and +R1m fines) accompanied the jail sentences.
“Big Chief” gets 15 years for a corrupt relationship
- The first SCA case involved a former high ranking politician and provincial Finance MEC (known to at least one of his subordinates as “Big Chief”) on the one hand, and on the other a businessman with interests in a property group.
- Both were convicted of corruption relating to “gratifications” paid to the politician for using his “considerable political clout” to help the property group lease premises to government departments on favourable terms and at inflated rentals, without following proper tender procedures.
- It was irrelevant, held the Court, that the gratifications were only paid after the event, they were “paid and received as part of an on-going corrupt relationship where it was accepted by both sides that one hand would wash the other, so to speak, in respect of other favours already made or anticipated in the future.”
- Neither did claiming that the payments were made for “consultancy services” and “business assistance” cut any ice at all with the Court.
- An attempt to appeal to the Constitutional Court having failed, the 15 year sentences must now be served.
Beyond the grave: Still payback time
The second SCA case involves the same matter but another politician and former provincial Head of Department, who faced much the same charges as the others but died before her trial ended.
That didn’t stop the state from obtaining a High Court order forfeiting to the state both the shares given to the deceased in one of the property-owning companies (worth R28m at the time), and her R2m house.
On appeal the SCA upheld the share forfeiture order but, on the principle that forfeiture is designed to remove the incentive for crime rather than to punish it, set aside the forfeiture of the entire property and instead ordered the executor of the deceased estate to pay R758k to the state’s criminal assets recovery account.
Victims of corruption – what to do
Whether you have lost out on a tender, are on the wrong end of a bribe solicitation, or are in any other way a direct victim of corruption, report it!
Our laws and our courts are behind you.
December 13, 2018
Believing someone to be guilty of a crime you call the police and have the suspect arrested, only to have the charges dropped. Can you be sued for defamation?
A recent High Court case provides some answers.
A fraudulent iPad order, an arrest and a R1.6m claim
- A government employee was, at the instigation of officials in his department, arrested and taken in for questioning by police on suspicion of fraudulently ordering R138,000 worth of 14 iPads on departmental letterheads.
- The police released him after taking a statement and his employers did not pursue disciplinary charges against him. They also withdrew an accusation of unlawful conduct in the workplace, with however an indication that the matter might be revisited if further information came to light.
- The employee accused his employers of defamation and sued them for R1.6m in damages for his tarnished dignity and reputation at work, trauma, post-traumatic stress, medical expenses and loss of earnings
Holding that the publication or allegation of a suspicion of a criminal offence is defamatory and the onus is upon the accuser “to prove justification”, the Court concluded, on the facts of this particular case, that there was indeed a “reasonable suspicion” that the employee had been involved in the fraudulent order. The employer had therefore been justified in its conduct.
The employee’s claim for damages accordingly failed and he is lumbered with a (no doubt substantial) legal bill.
The acid test – 3 things an accuser must prove
An accuser relying on reasonableness of the publication as a defence must prove, held the Court, that he or she –
- Had reason to believe in the truth of the statement,
- Took reasonable steps to verify its correctness, and
- Acted reasonably when reporting the matter to the police, or that publication of the statement was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
What that all boils down to is this – whether in the workplace or out of it, you aren’t automatically guilty of defamation just because no prosecution ensues.
What is vital is that you have enough evidence to prove all three legs of the reasonableness test if it comes to justifying your actions in court.
December 13, 2018
“… this is a matter of national security and… something of the order of 450,000 gun owners with their expired licences form part of this equation… in a country riddled with crime…” (Extracts from judgment below)
Possession of an unlicensed firearm is, for good reason, a serious offence carrying heavy penalties, and law abiding citizens will support the police in their efforts to rid our country of illegally-held firearms. It’s a major problem, with media reports suggesting that only 3m out of a total of 5.3m guns are registered and legally owned. That’s 2.3m illegal firearms out there!
Caught up in this are the almost half a million South African gun owners who have always held their firearms legally in terms of valid licences but have, for whatever reason, not renewed them on time. Not only private citizens are involved but also security service providers, and it’s a big issue – the Court in this case estimated that up to 60 million rounds of ammunition are involved.
These gun owners are faced with a serious quandary in that, following a Constitutional Court finding that the Firearms Act’s provisions pass constitutional muster, the police have been pressuring them to surrender their firearms for destruction or face arrest and prosecution. The argument is that once a licence has expired it comes to an end and cannot therefore be renewed, rendering possession of the firearm/s unlawful.
Of course the best advice is to always apply for renewal of your licence in good time (at least 90 days before expiry). But now holders of expired licences at least have some interim respite following a High Court decision. The Court has, pending determination of a full application by GOSA (Gun Owners of South Africa) to resolve the situation, ordered that SAPS “…are prohibited from implementing any plans of action or from accepting any firearms for which the licence [has] expired at its police stations or at any place, for the sole reason that the licence for the firearm expired and… from demanding that such firearms be handed over to it for the sole reason that the licence of such a firearm has expired…”.
Note that this is only interim relief and that there is still much uncertainty over what the final outcome of this case will be, over the validity of old “green” licences, over talk of a possible upcoming amnesty, and over an initiative to amend the Firearms Control Act to allow grace periods in which to apply for renewals.
Until there is clarity on all these issues ask your lawyer urgently for specific advice if you have a problem.
November 21, 2018
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse” (old Roman law principle applied in many legal systems worldwide)
Whether you travel abroad on business or on holiday, ignorance of local laws can easily land you in a situation where your protestations of “But I had no idea that that is illegal here, it’s totally legal in South Africa” are met with stony faces and a complete lack of sympathy from your destination’s law enforcement authorities. And whilst the nearest South African embassy or consulate can offer you some basic support, it’s the local laws – and penalties for contravening them – that could put you in jail (or worse).
Recently government has specifically warned travellers to acquaint themselves with the laws and customs of their destination countries. This follows the death sentence imposed on a South African drug smuggler in Vietnam, and reports that some 800 South Africans are currently doing time in foreign jails, not only on drug-related charges (see “Know your foreign laws before travelling” on the South African Government News Agency’s website).
In regard to drug laws the problem is that, with many countries in the process of either legalising or easing their stance on marijuana and other “soft” drugs, it can be difficult to keep up with what’s legal where.
And remember that even prescription drugs can put you behind bars – in some countries medicines which are legal in South Africa could land you in prison (in the case of Dubai for example, for 6 months to 2 years unless you are carrying the required “medical certificate” – see here).
Moreover the warning goes far beyond illegal drugs, and applies to you even if you have never had anything to do with them. In Thailand for example, you can be imprisoned for disrespecting the Thai Royal Family in any way – see here for details of how much trouble you can land in for not obeying that particular law.
There are many other such examples from around the world, and whilst some general articles are interesting for an overview of some unexpected laws in popular destinations (this one for example), rather Google specifically for the laws of the particular country or countries you are visiting. Just make sure that whatever webpage you land on is (a) authoritative and (b) up to date. A good place to start is perhaps the UK Government’s “Foreign travel advice” page.
DIRCO (the Department of International Relations and Cooperation) has plenty of guidance on its “Advice for South African Citizens Travelling Abroad” page here.
If you’re unsure of anything don’t take any chances, rather ask your lawyer for help.
October 24, 2018
The media has been awash with reports (sometimes conflicting, often vague) of what the recent Constitutional Court ruling actually means in practice.
Whether you agree with the ruling or not, and whether or not you personally have ever had (or intend to have) anything to do with cannabis/marijuana/weed/dagga, we all need to be aware of the implications. Here’s some food for thought –
- Err on the side of caution: Parliament has two years to change the relevant Acts to cure their constitutional defects. Until it does so, there will be many grey areas and your best course of action is always going to be to err on the side of caution. You really don’t want to be funding a test case in court, particularly if your job or your clean criminal record is at stake.
- The limits of the ruling: The Court’s decision has not comprehensively “legalised dagga”. What it has done is to provide that, until the Acts are amended, it could not be a criminal offence for an adult person –
- To use or be in possession of cannabis in private for his or her personal consumption in private; and
- To cultivate cannabis in a private place for his or her personal consumption in private.
Any form of supply or purchase, even in private, and any possession or use by a minor (under 18), anywhere, would still put you at risk of a criminal record and heavy penalties.
- The danger of arrest: As the Court put it, if a police officer finds a person in possession of cannabis and thinks it is not for personal consumption, then “He or she will ask the person such questions as may be necessary to satisfy himself or herself whether the cannabis he or she is in possession of is for personal consumption. If, having heard what the person has to say, the police officer thinks that the explanation is not satisfactory, he or she may arrest the person. Ultimately, it will be the court that will decide whether the person possessed the cannabis for personal consumption.” Similar considerations will, said the Court, apply to questions around cultivation.There is also no clarity on what will be considered to be a “private place” other than the Court’s comment that there are places other than “a person’s home or a private dwelling” where the right to privacy would apply.The bottom line – you still risk arrest on suspicion of having or growing more dagga than a police officer considers reasonable for your personal consumption, or in a place that you consider “private” but that a police officer doesn’t.
- Driving under the influence: Our law provides that: “No person shall on a public road … drive a vehicle or occupy the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle of which the engine is running … while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug having narcotic effect” (our underlining). Effective testing by police if you are pulled over is another matter entirely, but does anyone really want to risk a stay in a police cell while a test is arranged?
- In the workplace: Since the court’s ruling applies only to “private places” it seems unlikely that employees could ever get away with use or possession in a standard office situation. But what about an employee pitching for work whilst still under the influence? Practical issues of proof aside, it is probably an extremely bad idea. Employees have a general duty to perform their functions properly and doing anything to compromise that probably puts you at risk of at the very least a disciplinary warning. Of course anyone in a job where 100% sobriety is a non-negotiable necessity (think heavy machinery operators, surgeons, pilots and the like) risks a lot more than just a warning.
Employers: a final note
Having a properly-drawn “sobriety policy” in place will reduce the risk of confusion and dispute in the workplace. If you have a policy in place already, ask your lawyer to check that it adequately covers you in light of these new developments.
September 21, 2018
Here’s one more reason to never ever allow yourself or anyone else to drive when over the legal limit (for non-professional drivers, a breath alcohol content of 0.24mg per 1,000ml or a blood alcohol limit of 0.05g per 100ml).
If you are caught by the police (statistically, a regular offender will be caught sooner or later – there are 75,000 such arrests in SA every year) your life could be destroyed even before you see the inside of a courtroom.
Of course the police are duty bound to protect your fundamental rights whilst in their custody, but we’ve all heard the many nightmare stories of abuse and assault in police cells. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision dealt with one such case.
Gang raped in the cells
- A family man was arrested and charged with a number of very serious offences – driving under the influence of alcohol, reckless and negligent driving and failure to stop after an accident. This after, at 2.30 a.m. on a Saturday morning, he allegedly drove into a house’s fence/wall and then attempted to drive away from the scene, leaving his injured passengers behind.
- After charging him, senior police officers authorised the driver’s release from custody on R500 bail because he had a fixed home address and employment; was married with a 5 year-old child; had no previous convictions and no outstanding warrants of arrest; was not on bail on another case; and had not committed an offence while on bail.
- Before his release however he was transferred to another police station, and when his wife arrived to pay the bail she was laughed at and told no bail had been allowed.
- The driver accordingly spent the rest of the weekend in a police cell, where he was attacked and raped by an unknown number of cellmates, losing consciousness during the assault and scared to report the attack for fear of reprisals. He was unable to prove his allegations of a lack of cell inspections and of police failure to transfer him to another cell after he reported being warned of an impending attack on him, but there was no denial by the police of the sexual assault itself.
- In court the driver was released on bail and the charges against him were ultimately withdrawn.
- He then sued for damages, and as in every civil liability claim, needed to prove wrongful conduct by the police that had caused him harm, plus some form of fault or blameworthiness (like intention or negligence).
- In the end result the Court ordered the police to pay damages to the driver on the basis that –
- The conduct of the police and its wrongfulness were not in dispute,
- The police had been negligent both in failing to release him on bail and in failing to separate him from violent offenders also in custody, and
- There was a “direct and probable chain of causation” between those failures and the attack.
Police liable; but what consolation damages?
So the driver has been vindicated but the Court’s award to him of R200,000 in “general damages” is unlikely to go far in consoling him for the ordeal’s impact on his life. Our courts are deliberately conservative in assessing general damages, but the clinical psychologist’s evidence as to the serious psychological impact on the driver of his experience (as reported in the judgement) makes for harrowing reading.
Intense trauma, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, ongoing treatment with anti-depressants (six years down the line), deep humiliation, intense fear of amongst other things contracting HIV, sexual problems, a broken marriage, problems relating to his child, poor self-image, personality changes, flashbacks – the list goes on. Ultimately problems at work (including being unable to work in teams and being mocked by his colleagues) led to his employment being terminated, after which he attempted suicide and spent five days in a hospital ICU.
Of course none of this means that we should supinely accept vindictiveness or negligence from those appointed to serve and protect us. Media reports suggest that large claims against the police (and other government services) are regularly settled out of court for millions. Just remember that legal advice as soon as possible after the incident is essential!
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.