YACOOB J person who commits the delict is on or off duty, though not decisive, is important. A court should not lightly hold the employer vicariously liable for the conduct of an offduty police officer. In that event, the other factors must, in my view, be sufficiently strong to make up for the absence of the duty element. [165] An example will perhaps illustrate the point. Take the case where vicarious liability is asserted arising from the conduct of a mechanic employed by the police service who, on a jaunt of his own, arrested someone while he was off duty and not in uniform. Assume also that he claimed to be a policeman, hauled the victim to a police station, made a docket, wrongfully and unlawfully charged him with attempted housebreaking and locked him up.14 There is a much greater possibility of the required link being established in a case of this kind in our constitutional order than in the case with which we are here concerned. The same would apply if the mechanic raped the victim at the police station. [166] Mr van Wyk was not on duty at the time he committed the rape. The facts in this case must be carefully considered to ascertain whether a sufficient link had been shown. [167] It is true that Mr van Wyk drove a police car, there were dockets in the car, and he said that he claimed to be a private detective. These three factors go some way towards establishing some kind of link. But whether the link is sufficient must be 14 These facts are taken from the case of Minister of Police v Rabie above n 3. 68