One of the great injustices of our legal system is that when people are wrongfully accused of committing crimes they have little chance of getting any compensation from the investigating authorities or the government. This is despite the fact that their reputations have been dragged through the mud, their liberty curtailed and their lives turned inside out as the criminal justice system grinds on relentlessly.

Take for example, Dr Mohammed Haneef, the Gold Coast doctor, who was charged, after what must be rated one of the most incompetent investigation processes in Australia’s history, with terrorism offences only to find that the Commonwealth DPP would drop the charges. Dr Haneef was also wrongfully detained by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and has had to give up the chance of pursuing his medical career in Australia.

Why shouldn’t Dr Haneef be allowed to sue the Australian government and the Australian Federal Police for the loss and damage that he has undoubtedly suffered as a result of being wrongfully accused of committing criminal offences?

Perhaps Dr Haneef’s lawyers might care to examine closely a decision handed down last week by the Supreme Court of Canada – the equivalent of our High Court – which upholds the right of individuals to sue the police and government where an investigation has been negligent.

The case concerned a Jason Hill who had spent 20 months in jail after being wrongly accused of committing a number of armed robberies.

While the Canadian Supreme Court said Mr Hill was not entitled to compensation in this case, a majority of the Court did however recognise that Police officers owe a duty of care to suspects. “Their conduct during an investigation should be measured against the standard of how a reasonable officer in like circumstances would have acted. Police officers may be accountable for harm resulting to a suspect if they fail to meet this standard,” the Court said.

There does need to be a close examination of the AFP’s handling of the Haneef case to determine whether or not the errors made were simply understandable mistakes, or so gross as to be negligent. For example, do the mistakes made about the SIM Card Dr Haneef gave to his cousin amount to negligence on the part of the AFP?

Given the way in which Dr Haneef’s life has been damaged by the AFP’s appalling handling of him, it seems only fair that they are held accountable for their actions and are forced to provide compensation to him. Maybe the Supreme Court of Canada has made that a more likely prospect.