Is there any case law in which a person can be held liable for the torturing of a person by their own guards?

Canada (Federal), Canada

The following excerpt is from Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 8540 (FCA), [1992] 2 FC 306:

Moreover, in my opinion the court there cast its net too broadly in stating (at p. 172): Just watching is equally culpable with just torturing. All humans in distress just naturally look for help to other humans, a truth which has been accorded judicial notice. In 1921, in the U.S. case of Wagner v. Int. R.R., 133 N.E. 147; 19 A.L.R. 1 (N.Y.), the late Mr. Justice Cardozo, albeit in a different context, expressed that which might be a consistent human verity: "Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief. The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind in tracing conduct to its consequences. ... The risk of rescue, if only it be not wanton is born of the occasion." Thus, it is so perverse and reprehensible just to watch the torture of a fellow human, no matter with what posture or expression, be it glee or just indifference, without making any gesture to rescue the victim, that the watchers are just as immorally criminal as the wielders of the electrodes, pliers, cigarette butts or instruments of suffocation. To be purposely inflicted with agonizing pain in the presence of other humans who will not come to one's help, is to be doubly tortured, for it creates utter despair. The "mere" watcher is just as culpable a torturer as the actual physical torturer.[6] No doubt in the circumstances of that case, where four members of a police force, who had freely chosen their occupation, were isolated in a room with a victim with no other purpose than collectively to apply torture to the victim, guards, witnesses and watchers were all equally guilty of personal and knowing involvement in persecutorial acts. But, as I see it, that is a determination that can be made only in a particular factual context, and cannot establish a general rule that those who look on are always as guilty as those who act. In fact, in my view there is no liability on those who watch unless they can themselves be said to be knowing participants.

Other Questions


Does the presumption that a person who makes a statement of intent to injure another person be liable for damages if that statement contains two statements of intent? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a person can be held liable in civil and criminal cases? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for whether a person who has been found unfit to stand trial for murder by reason of reason is considered to be a "dangerous person" under s. 19(1)(a)(ii) of the Mental Health Act? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the test for determining whether or not a person who refuses or fails to conduct an inquiry into their personal tax situation is a tax evasive? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the test for an application to remove a person from a country where there is a high risk of torture? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is a waiver to supersede personal information superseding personal information enforceable? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is a person who refuses to comply with section 235(1) of the Canadian Bill of Rights liable to arrest and prosecution for refusing to comply? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a person can be held liable for a breach of the terms of their relationship? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for the right of a single person to cast their ballot at the same time as a second person? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does the arrest and subsequent courts-martial of a person who masqueraded as a military officer affect the conviction of the person who was arrested? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.