Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971

Offences - Offences involving guard duty, violence, and insubordination

37: Obstruction of provost officers

You could also call this:

"Blocking or Refusing to Help a Provost Officer is Against the Law"

Illustration for Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971

You can commit an offence if you obstruct a provost officer doing their job. You can also commit an offence if you refuse to help a provost officer after they ask you to. This can lead to imprisonment for up to 2 years. You commit an offence if you obstruct or refuse to help someone who is acting on behalf of a provost officer. This person can be subject to the Act or not. They must be lawfully exercising authority under or on behalf of a provost officer. If you are charged with this offence, you can defend yourself if you can prove you did not know the person was a provost officer. You must also prove you had no reason to believe they were a provost officer or acting on their behalf. 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 It might be out of date or be missing some parts.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=DLM402710.

This page was last updated on 1 January 2026 — View changes

Topics:

Crime and justice > Criminal lawCrime and justice > Police and safetyGovernment and voting > Government departments

36: Insubordinate behaviour, or

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

38: Disobeying a lawful command, or

"Breaking a lawful order from a superior officer is against the law"

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

37Obstruction of provost officers

Every person subject to this Act commits an offence, and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, who—
obstructs; or
after being called on to do so, refuses to assist—

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 a provost officer or, as the case may be, a person lawfully exercising authority under or on behalf of a provost officer.