criminal-law germany
Is forcibly smearing someone with feces a crime, and which one?
<p>In February 2023, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/13/german-ballet-director-smeared-poo-face-of-critic-who-wrote-negative-review-hanover-state-opera" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a German ballet director forcibly smeared dog feces into the face of a journalist</a>. The director said the journalist had written scathingly critical reviews of his work for years, and had &quot;thrown shit at me for years&quot;. When the journalist visited a performance of a piece he directed, he confronted her in the opera lobby, started a discussion and finally smeared her with dog feces from a bag he had with him.</p>
<p>While this is certainly despicable behavior, would it count as a crime? The attack, while disgusting, did not cause bodily harm, since feces can be washed off. It is really an attack exploiting the person's sense of disgust and a form of humiliation - but I think humiliating someone is in itself not criminal. So, what crime would that be? Some form of assault?</p>
<p>I am most interested in answers about German laws, but other answers are welcome, too.</p>

<p><strong>tl;dr</strong>: As far as I can see, 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="germany-container">germany</a> this would be covered under <strong>Körperverletzung</strong> (literally: &quot;bodily harm&quot;, <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__223.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)
§ 223</a>), and possibly under <strong>Beleidigung</strong> (insult, <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__185.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§185 StGB</a>).</p>
<p>Public broadcaster NDR reports that Goecke is in fact being investigated for committing these offences -  <a href="https://www.ndr.de/kultur/buehne/Nach-Hundekot-Attacke-Staatsoper-trennt-sich-von-Marco-Goecke,goecke166.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nach Hundekot-Attacke: Staatsoper Hannover trennt sich von Goecke</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>While the title of the law &quot;Körperverletzung&quot; refers to &quot;Verletzung&quot; (injury), the actual text is more complex:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) Wer eine andere Person körperlich mißhandelt oder an der
Gesundheit schädigt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder
mit Geldstrafe bestraft.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>English (from <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">official translation</a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(1) Whoever physically assaults or damages the health of another
person incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years or a fine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, <em>Körperverletzung</em> is one of two things:</p>
<ul>
<li>actual bodily harm, <em>or</em></li>
<li>physical mistreatment (or assault)</li>
</ul>
<p>This means that mistreatment is covered, even if it does not result in medical harm or injury. For example, in 2016, <a href="https://www.lto.de/recht/kurioses/k/ag-frankfurt-8940-js-2515-45-14-main-toter-vogel-justizbriefkasten-koerperverletzung-ekel/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a court found an accused guilty of <em>Körperverletzung</em> for putting a dead bird into the letterbox of a court</a>. The repulsion which a court employee felt when finding the dead, decaying bird was considered to be a form of mistreatment.</p>
<p>While a court would need to decide, smearing someone with feces seems reasonably similar to making them touch a rotting bird corpse, so it would likely be covered by the same law.</p>
<p>In addition to that, dog feces may cause real health problems, such as allergic reactions or infections. This would obviously qualify as <em>Körperverletzung</em>, but may be harder to prove.</p>
<hr />
<p>In addition to that, the humiliation caused by the act might also count as a form of insult (<em>Beleidigung</em>, <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__185.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§185 StGB</a>). Note that §185 StGB explicitly mentions an insult committed via a physical act (&quot;mittels einer Tätlichkeit&quot;) as an aggravating circumstance.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="canada-container">canada</a></p>
<p>Taking the description of events at face value, and absent any affirmative defences, this would be assault: intentionally applying force, directly or indirectly, to another person without their consent. See <em>Criminal Code</em>, <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-265.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">s. 265</a>.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a><a href="/questions/tagged/northern-ireland" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;northern-ireland&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;northern-ireland&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="northern-ireland-container">northern-ireland</a></p>
<p>After reading <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service</a>, I'd say this constitutes 'unlawfully and maliciously administer[ing] to or caus[ing] to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person' under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/24?view=extent" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861</a>.</p>
<p>ETA: the action also constitutes common assault, but the <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/1332.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Court of Appeal ruling in Veysey v. R (2019)</a> makes clear that the appropriate charge is administering etc., rather than common assault.</p>

<p>It is certainly not necessary for an act to &quot;cause bodily harm&quot; for it to be criminal in <a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a>.</p>
<p>From the <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CPS guidance on charging standards</a>, &quot;common assault&quot; is &quot;any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer <strong>or apprehend</strong> immediate unlawful violence.&quot; (my emphasis).</p>
<p>In this context &quot;apprehend&quot; roughly means &quot;expect&quot;.</p>
<p>Reading further in the page, it is not clear whether it would be prosecutable as &quot;Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)&quot;.</p>
