FRONEMAN J dishonest conduct will always be wrongful for the purposes of imposing liability, but it is difficult to think of an example where it will not be so. In our view, speaking generally, the fact that a defendant‘s conduct was deliberate and dishonest strongly suggests that liability for it should follow in damages, even where a public tender is being awarded.‖78 [146] Similar considerations apply here. I accept that there is no general obligation on the police to protect citizens from crime where they are not on duty.79 But the converse, that they never have that obligation when not on duty, is not true either. While off-duty, they are entitled to arrest without a warrant.80 themselves on duty when the occasion warrants it.81 They may place When they are placed in possession of police resources by virtue of their status as police officials when they are off-duty, particular circumstances might oblige them to assume their protective duties towards the public. Those circumstances would arise where, objectively, vulnerable people place their trust in them because they are police officials. And intentional disregard of their protective duty in these kinds of circumstances may be the last straw for the courts to decide that it is reasonable to impose delictual liability. [147] This is that kind of case. I consider that wrongfulness has been established. 78 Gore above n 46 at paras 86-8. 79 See Supreme Court of Appeal judgment above n 4 at paras 44-5. 80 Section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. 81 Compare Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters [2006] ZACC 21; 2007 (2) SA 106 (CC); 2007 (3) BCLR 287 (CC) at para 35. 59