FRONEMAN J behalf of the applicant and the amici assist in establishing any public duty on the state in this matter. [134] The particular form of the argument rested on the fact that Mr van Wyk had previous convictions and the assertion that the Minister had a legal duty to remove him from the police service for the reason that his continued service in the police created the risk of the kind of behaviour that he exhibited that night eventuating. It seems to me that this ―duty‖ takes the matter no further. If no primary public duty rested on Mr van Wyk, or any other policeman in his position, not to rape the applicant or to prevent her rape, then that is the end of the enquiry. It would not matter whether Mr van Wyk had been properly vetted earlier, because in the circumstances there would have been no duty on any policeman, good or bad, to prevent Ms F‘s rape.69 [135] The general argument is that the existence of an organisation like the police service creates or increases the risk of rape by policemen. On balance I think we must accept that the existence of the police service reduces the risk of crime, including rape.70 [136] That brings us back to the possible existence of a public duty resting on Mr van Wyk. What would its nature and content be? 69 In my view these considerations are more appropriate to determine whether the state was negligent in a direct liability enquiry. See [125] above and [148] below. 70 See Fagan ―The Confusions of K‖ above n 2 at 199-204. 55