YACOOB J On these facts, this Court found three bases for the conclusion that the delict (simultaneous omission and commission) bore a sufficient connection to the employment of the policemen: a. The policemen and their employer all carried a statutory and constitutional duty to prevent crime and protect the members of the public.11 b. The police there had offered to assist Ms K and she had accepted their offer and by doing so displayed her trust in the policemen in uniform, in circumstances where it was reasonable for Ms K to do so.12 c. There had been a simultaneous commission and omission: the police had committed the brutal rape; and their simultaneous omission was that they failed ―while on duty to protect her from harm‖ which, they had a general and a special duty to do.13 [164] It will have been noted that the fact that the policemen were on duty at the time of the simultaneous commission and omission was a significant factor in the evaluation in K. I accept without qualification that whether the policemen are on or off duty is not a decisive factor. This is because there may be circumstances in which the connection is sufficiently strong even though policemen are not on duty. A victim of the wrongful conduct of an off-duty police officer will necessarily have to go a longer way to establish the connection. I would say that the question of whether the 11 Id at para 51. 12 Id at paras 51 and 52. 13 Id at para 53. 67