Three ex-criminals, Boris, Tommy, and Turkish have become police informants, giving information about their old criminal associates to the police. They have been taken into a witness protection programme and are living new lives with new identities. Information about their new lives and identities is held on a high-security police computer server. However, a hacker breaks into the secure server, and the police discover that the new identities of Boris, Tommy, and Turkish have been exposed to their old criminal associates.

The police immediately call Boris to inform him that his new identity has been exposed. However, it is too late for Boris, as he has already been hunted down and killed by his old associates.

The police completely forget to call Tommy, and he is killed by his old associates. It appears highly likely that Tommy would have been able to get away in time if the police had called him when they became aware that his new identity had been exposed.

The police call Turkish to tell him what has happened, and he is given another new identity and life. A year later, Turkish is out shopping one day when he sees someone who he thinks is one of his old criminal associates on the street. He is unsure if he has been spotted by his old associate. He tells the police about what has happened and begs them to give him some more protection. The police make a careful note of what has happened and give a warning to all officers in the area to be on the lookout for Turkish's old associates, but take no further action. The next morning Turkish is mowing his lawn and is gunned down by his old associates.

The widows of Boris, Tommy, and Turkish seek your advice on their potential tort law claims against the police. Please provide thorough answer by using IPAC structure with case law supporting evidence.