In September 2025, the High Court found that the police were held liable for failing to prevent the destruction of property during a violent protest on a private farm. Despite repeated warnings to the police about the risk of violence, the visible presence of police, and available public order resources, officers failed to intervene as a large group entered the farm, set machinery alight, and killed animals.
Cattle belonging to the community strayed onto the claimant’s farm and were later found dead. The police and the SPCA attended the scene and initially wanted to bury the carcasses. However, at the community’s insistence, the carcasses were left for politicians and the media to view, escalating tensions.
The police were repeatedly warned that a large group was gathering, trespassing, and setting machinery alight. Neighbouring farmers who tried to help were turned away by police.
The court considered whether the police had a legal duty to act to protect property in these circumstances, whether and harm was foreseeable, and whether the police should have taken steps to prevent the harm.
The court applied established principles, holding that failure by the police to act is wrongful when legislation, the Constitution and the legal convictions of the community require a positive duty to act. The court held that the harm was clearly foreseeable. A reasonable police officer would have foreseen the risk and taken the necessary steps to avoid it. There was clear evidence that the police had the required resources to prevent the damage but never used them.
The court endorsed a practical approach to causation, using both the “but-for” and “material increase in risk” tests. Not only would the harm not have occurred had the police acted positively, but the police’s failure to act reasonably materially increased the risk of harm. On either basis, the court found that causation was established.
The court found that the police’s failure to act was wrongful and negligent, and caused the claimant’s loss. Accordingly, the court found in favour of the claimant and the police were ordered to pay damages.