Section 70: Acting under an official's order

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6344/2531 (1988)

   A mere request for cooperation from an official is not an order within Section 70, so it does not excuse a person who acts on it; the person remains liable for the offence.

   A district officer had only asked for cooperation, which the second defendant was free to follow or not. The Court held this did not amount to an order under Section 70, so it did not relieve him of liability, and his intentional damage to the plaintiff's property was an offence under Section 358.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 387/2512 (1969)

   Where police officers enter a house at night to arrest a wanted man on their superior's order but do not follow the law on arrest and search, the man's resistance means only that he commits no offence of resisting an official; it gives him no right or lawful authority to use a weapon on them. Where he stabs an officer who has done no more than say he is making the arrest, the officer who then shoots to save his own life acts in defence of his life, and if the act is proportionate he is not punished.

   The defendant and his fellow officers, all non-commissioned officers and constables, entered a house at night to arrest the deceased, a wanted man, on their superior's order, without following the law on arrest and search. The Supreme Court held that this meant only that the deceased would commit no offence of resisting an official; it gave him no right to use a weapon. The defendant had only said he was making the arrest and had done nothing more when the deceased stabbed him, so in firing he was defending his own life, and the act being proportionate he was not punished. The exemption rested on defence, not on Section 70.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.