FRONEMAN J constitutional norms.46 It is apparent from this that the general criterion of ―reasonableness‖ in the wrongfulness enquiry concerns the reasonableness of imposing liability on the defendant and not the reasonableness of the defendant‘s conduct, which is an element of the separate negligence enquiry in our law of delict.47 [120] The wrongfulness requirement in our law of delict is thus a normative or policy-based enquiry to decide whether new rights and duties should be recognised and whether old ones should be extended, restricted or abolished.48 Wrongfulness and constitutional values [121] Decisions of this Court49 and the Supreme Court of Appeal50 have recognised that constitutional values must now inform this evaluative assessment, in particular the value or norm of accountability.51 46 Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening) [2001] ZACC 22; 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC); 2001 (10) BCLR 995 (CC) (Carmichele (CC)) at para 43; Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 21; Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security (Women’s Legal Centre Trust, as Amicus Curiae) 2003 (1) SA 389 (SCA) (Van Eeden) at paras 9-12; Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton 2004 (2) SA 216 (SCA) (Hamilton) at paras 16-9; Gouda above n 42 at para 12; Two Oceans above n 36 at para 10; and Minister of Finance and Others v Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA) (Gore) at para 82. 47 Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2006 (3) SA 151 (SCA) at para 25; Telematrix above n 36 at paras 12-3; and Two Oceans above n 36 at para 11. 48 Compare Price above n 42 at 5 and at fn 38. 49 Carmichele (CC) above n 46 and Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others [2004] ZACC 20; 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC); 2005 (4) BCLR 301 (CC) (Rail Commuters) at paras 73-8. 50 Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 21; Van Eeden above n 46 at para 12; Minister of Safety and Security v Carmichele 2004 (3) SA 305 (SCA) (Carmichele (SCA)) at para 43; Hamilton above n 46 at paras 16-9; Two Oceans above n 36 at para 10; Gouda above n 42 at para 12; and Gore above n 46 at para 82. 51 Determining wrongfulness in these matters involves the balancing of identifiable norms (Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 21). These identifiable norms will include constitutional norms. An important constitutional norm that will factor in cases such as these is the norm of accountability. For its development see Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board and Another 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA) at para 31; Van Duivenboden above n 42 at para 20; and Faircape Property Developers (Pty) Ltd v Premier, Western Cape 2000 (2) SA 54 (C) at 65B-H. For applications thereof see Van Eeden above n 46 and Hamilton above n 46. See also the favourable discussion of accountability by this Court in Rail Commuters above n 49 at 73-8. This norm was succinctly stated by Harms JA in Carmichele (SCA) above n 50 at para 43 as follows: ―[T]he State is liable [in 49