The lawsuit of a grieving mother whose daughter died because an RCMP officer failed to do his duty should be dismissed because the daughter isn’t around to file it herself, government lawyers argued Wednesday.

The family of Lisa Dudley, who was left dying for days in Mission in 2008 when a Mountie didn’t even bother to get out of his car to investigate a 911 call, can’t be avenged by a Charter challenge because Dudley herself is dead, said lawyer David Quon.

“The law is clear…any rights terminate with her death, and so the suit is not actionable,” Quon told a B.C. Supreme Court judge.

Dudley’s family called that line of reasoning shocking and insulting outside court today.

“It’s terrible to think that [Dudley] had constitutional rights for 94 hours, four complete days, then suddenly it’s cast to the wind,” said Dudley’s stepfather, Mark Surraka.

Dudley was shot along with her boyfriend Guthrie McKay. McKay was killed, but Dudley was shot in the neck and just paralysed.

Const. Mike White was sent to investigate a report of shots fired, but the officer didn’t get out of his car, nor did he talk to the 911 complainant.

A recording of the dispatch logs shows White laughing about the call.

Four days later, a neighbour found Dudley dying. She was rushed into an air ambulance but died en route to hospital.

“There was a failure there. A complete failure. We believe that if the authorities had done was they were supposed to do, Lisa would still be alive,” said Surakka.

White was docked a day’s pay for the incident. One man has since pleaded guilty in the case, while two others await trial for murder.

The Surakkas are suing, saying the government denied Dudley her Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

The provincial and federal governments are moving to dismiss the case, saying that Dudley has no standing because she is no longer alive to represent herself.

The Surakkas’s lawyer, Monique Pongracic-Speier, said it makes no sense to guarantee Canadians life, liberty and security through the Charter but not allow someone to sue if those rights are denied.

“It’s a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy,” Pongracic-Speier told the court.

Lawyer John-Paul Boyd said that usually Charter challenges require someone who is harmed by a breach of the Charter, and if this case is allowed, it could set a major precedent.

“It would be significant because it would be saying you could bring a Charter challenge based on the principle at stake, not because you are representing someone who themselves were harmed,” he said.

Dudley’s mother, Rosemarie Surakka, said the pain of her daughter’s death is still with her.

“It’s a nightmare. It’s a nightmare for almost every minute of every day,” she said.