-13 some expense; and, in the robbery cases, 68.8 per cent of those completing the questionnaire claimed some loss. Surprising as these figures may appear at first glance, on closer examination it becomes understandable; for example, a girl who is raped might not require any redical attention or, if she does require it, she may be too embarrassed to seek it. Furthermore, a merchant who is robbed might have returned immediately to him the articles or money taken by the criminal, when the latter is apprehended during the course of his escape. More commonly, the person robbed might be an employee of a bank, like a teller, who hands over the bank's money and is not harmed. In the case of a wounding offence, it may turn out, happily, to be less serious than it appeared initially at the time it was reported. The type of losses suffered by the respondents included medical, hospital, salary and property losses. Table I indicates that 41.3 per cent of all the victims that were studied reported some medical cost, 37.7 per cent incurred hospital expenses, 26.9 per cent suffered salary loss and 52 per cent had to bear some property loss. Taking each offence separately, the rape cases yielded medical expense in 81.8 per cent of the occasions, hospital costs in 81.8 per cent of the cases, salary loss in 45.4 per cent of instances and property loss in 36.3 per cent of the cases. the -14 In the wounding cases a similar pattern emerges; 80.6 per cent of these victims incurred medical expenses, 87.1 per cent hospital costs, 35.1 per cent salary loss, and 25.8 per cent property loss. In the robbery cases, there seemed to be less physical injury inflicted but, understandably, more property losses, because implicit in the very nature of the robbery offence is the infringement of a property interest. Here 24 per cent required medical attention, 22.4 per cent hospital care. 23.2 per cent suffered salary loss and 60 per cent incurred property loss. There were, of course, many individuals who suffered more than one type of loss and, indeed, a fair number of them incurred all four types of loss. In case number 5008, for example, the girl who was raped incurred medical, hospital, salary and property loss and, because she did not have any of it covered by insurance, she ended up with an out-of-pocket loss of $300. In case number 6082, the person who was wounded suffered all four types of loss, and, even though he collected from several sources including tort, he was still left poorer by $1,345 at the end of the day. In conclusion, the overwhelming majority of the crimes studied bring about some economic loss to the victim, although a few do not. The rap and wounding cases nearly always generate -15 hospital and medical costs, but do not as frequently yield salary or property loss. The robbery cases do not create the need for hospital and medical care as often as do the rape and wounding cases, but property loss is much more commonly encountered here. Individuals victimized by crime are normally entitled under ordinary tort law to sue their assailants for money damages. This is so because most conduct constituting a criminal offence will also amount to a civil wrong or a tort. In the early days of legal development forcible wrongs, involving breaches of the peace, were regulated by the "writ of trespass". In the old common law courts, if an offender was convicted of "trespass", not only was he liable to pay a fine, but he could be made to pay damages to his victim as well. Although this close association between tort and crime has survived in some countries of the world to this day, the courts of the common law jurisdictions long ago segregated the civil action from the criminal one. One of the few vestiges of the former unity of crime and tort that remains in Canada is section 638(2) of the Criminal Code that provides: A court that suspends the passing of sentence may and the court may impose such further conditions as |