Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971

Offences - Offences involving guard duty, violence, and insubordination

35: Violence to a superior officer

You could also call this:

"Hitting or being violent to someone in charge of you in the armed forces is against the law."

Illustration for Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971

You can commit an offence if you strike, use violence to, or offer violence to a superior officer. You can go to prison for up to 5 years if you do this. This applies to anyone subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. If you are charged with this offence, you can defend yourself if you can prove you did not know the person was your superior officer. You must also prove you had no reason to believe they were your superior officer. This is your defence against the charge.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM402708.

This page was last updated on — View changes

Topics:
Crime and justice > Criminal law
Previous

34: Offences by or in relation to a person on guard duty or on watch, or

"Rules for people on guard duty to keep others safe"

Next

36: Insubordinate behaviour, or

"Disrespecting someone in charge of you in the armed forces"

Part 2Offences
Offences involving guard duty, violence, and insubordination

35Violence to a superior officer

  1. Every person subject to this Act commits an offence, and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, who—

  2. strikes; or
    1. otherwise than by striking, uses violence to; or
      1. offers violence to—
          1. his superior officer.

        1. In any proceedings in respect of a charge for an offence against subsection (1), it is a defence to the charge if the accused proves that he neither knew nor had reasonable cause to believe that the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed was his superior officer.