criminal-law any-jurisdiction negligence
Have people been charged for obstructing evacuation?
<p>When evacuating a vehicle or a building in distress, the evacuees are normally supposed to leave their belongings behind. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34191035" rel="noreferrer">This doesn't always happen</a>.</p>
<p>Technically, if actual harm comes to others through such action, it could count as endangerment or similar crimes of negligence. Of course, going after people who have been through an accident is unlikely to be a law enforcement priority, so has it ever happened?</p>
<p>I'm aware of cases against building owners, operators, or staff, which have impeded or obstructed an evacuation, but all of them have a duty of care.</p>
<p>Has a civilian not under the duty of care, such as a passenger, ever been criminally charged for obstructing an evacuation, in which they had been an evacuee?</p>
<p>I'm interested in any jurisdictions, and particularly in the strongest charges that have been brought in such a case.</p>

<h2>In <a href="/questions/tagged/germany" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-germany-tooltip-container">germany</a>, you are likely charged if you actively interfere.</h2>
<p>Let's preface this with the fact, that in Germany, people have a duty to aid in case of accidents, <strong>as long as you don't endanger yourself</strong>. The absolute minimum is to call the emergency service and not obstruct those that render aid. However, just not rendering aid is rarely charged.</p>
<p>However, since a few years, people that slow down to make videos of crash sites or who stop to look at an accident, and in doing so block emergency helpers, are now almost routinely charged with obstruction of emergency workers, together with possibly other charges like assault and insult. <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/bremervoerde-haft-und-geldstrafen-in-gaffer-prozess-a-1145060.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">One of the most prominent cases was in 2017</a>, where the person attacked emergency workers and police. He was sentenced to 4 months for the various assaults and bodily injury.</p>
<p>Based on this case (where the person was just sentenced for resisting police and assault), it ultimately lead to a new law. <a href="https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/bewaehrungsstrafe-fuer-behinderung-von-rettungskraeften-18614665.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">One of many cases that started in 2023 had a similar pattern</a> but the charge is based on the new law: <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__323c.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 323 c Abs. 2 StGB</a> - not delivering aid and obstruction of aiding persons. This law allows up to one year of prison time for hindering any person rendering aid.</p>
<p>Also, <a href="https://www.ruv.de/kfz-versicherung/magazin/rund-ums-fahren/gesetz-gegen-gaffer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">creating pictures at accident sites that depict people or corpses and sharing them in a manner that is humiliating to the victims</a> in itself can be a breach of <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__201a.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 201 a StGB</a> - injury of privacy by means of photography. This can get a sentence of up to two years, and would most likely be joined by a charge of not delivering aid and obstructing helpers. Do note that this is <strong>not</strong> covering photos that were made for example as evidence of the situation or not shared with third parties.</p>
<h2>Being in peril yourself...</h2>
<p>When you technically are in peril yourself, you don't have to render aid. Being stupid like grabbing your carry-on luggage isn't technically covered by the law, and because the person is in danger themselves, it will be very hard for the prosecution to decide if they want to prosecute.</p>
<p>If Alice just grabs her carry-on in panic and nothing happens as she evacuates, charging will be extremely unlikely, as in, the chance is nigh nonexistent.</p>
<p>Bob, who steps out of the way of others while he calmly takes his things is not interfering with the rescue, and thus charging him is most likely not going to happen.</p>
<p>But Charly, who blocks the path of everybody because he wants to go to the other end of the plane to get his luggage and does not let anybody pass and thus increasing the danger of the situation (or even cause death) might break the threshold that the prosecution is willing to prosecute to make an example out of him. The more egregious his behavior was, the more they might look into if other charges can become applicable.</p>
<p>However, those other charges are usually not from the blocking or inaction, but from an action against someone that is in the same peril as the actor. If Dora during the building fire grabbed a fire axe and smacked it over someone's head while he was trying to evacuate her, so she could get her items from another room, that would be dangerous mayhem <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__224.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(§ 224 StGB, Gefährliche Körperverletzung</a>).</p>

<h2>It’s unlikely that there is any criminality here</h2>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-australia-tooltip-container">australia</a></p>
<p>Failing to comply with the lawful order of police or emergency services allows the use of force to ensure compliance but is not itself an <a href="https://australianemergencylaw.com/2014/01/10/legality-of-forced-evacuations-during-nsw-bushfires/" rel="noreferrer">offence</a>.</p>
<p>Obstructing the Minister or a person acting under the authority of the Minister during a declared State of Emergency is an offence but taking things you are told not to take is <em>not</em> obstruction. Legally, obstruction requires wilful interference, not just making things harder than they might otherwise have been.</p>
<p>It’s possible that failing to follow well defined and practiced emergency procedures might violate Work Health and Safety laws but that would only be for people who held a duty under them. Technically, this includes workers but their duty is slight and broad allowances are made - the assumption being that if a worker screws up this is due to inadequate training or supervision by the employer. Typically, for a worker to be charged, reckless disregard or wilfulness needs to be proved.</p>
