Article 353 – Resistance, Threat or Violence Against a Protector of Public Order
Article 353 of the Criminal Code of Georgia protects the activity of protectors of public order and representatives of authority. Under this article, resistance to a police officer, an officer of the special penitentiary service or another representative of authority – with the aim of obstructing the protection of public order, stopping or changing his activity, or compelling him to perform a clearly unlawful act, committed by violence or the threat of violence – is punished. In practice this is one of the most frequently applied articles in connection with detention episodes.
Two directions are built into the name of the article itself: resistance, and violence or threat. For the qualification under the first part, the act must be committed by violence or the threat of violence – which means that a mere refusal to obey, without violence, is not assessed under the first part of this article. This distinction is fundamental for the defense.
What the Prosecution Must Prove – the Elements
The prosecution must establish four circumstances: that the victim was a police officer, an officer of the special penitentiary service or another representative of authority; that resistance or violence/threat was directed against him; that this was aimed at obstructing the protection of public order, stopping or changing his activity, or compelling a clearly unlawful act; and that the resistance was carried out by violence or the threat of violence.
Each element is separately verifiable: video material and witness testimony are often contradictory, and it is precisely the comparison of that evidence which determines the outcome of the case. Establishing the aim is particularly important – the prosecution must confirm that the person interfered precisely in the protector's activity, and was not merely defending himself or reacting to circumstances.
Sanctions – the Parts of the Article Separately
Article 353 consists of two parts, and the sanction of each must be presented separately:
- part 1 – resistance against a police officer, an officer of the special penitentiary service or another representative of authority, committed by violence or the threat of violence – a fine, or house arrest for a term of up to two years, or imprisonment for a term of two to six years;
- part 2 – the same act committed by a group or more than once – imprisonment for a term of five to eight years.
Part 1 starts from a fine, while part 2 provides for imprisonment only – from five to eight years. Whether group commission and repetition are confirmed therefore more than doubles the penalty. The rules on individualization of punishment are defined by other norms of the Code.
Aggravating Forms and the Note on Repetition
Part 2 treats as aggravated commission by a group and commission more than once. The note to the article clarifies the condition of repetition: the offence is considered committed more than once if it was preceded by the commission of an offence provided for by this article or by the norm of this article marked with a one. Without a preceding episode, repetition does not exist – and that preceding episode must be separately confirmed by the prosecution.
Group commission likewise requires proof: the presence of several persons at the same episode is not enough for group commission – concerted action precisely in committing the resistance must be established. If these circumstances are not confirmed, the case remains under part 1.
Practical Aspects of the Defense
Most such cases occur in the street, at public events or during detention, where the parties' versions almost always differ. The defense verifies: whether the protector's action was lawful and proportionate; who started the conflict; whether the person's conduct was genuinely violence or a defensive reaction. Video recording – both the protector's own and independently filmed – is the decisive evidence in such cases.
A separate aspect is the formulation of the aim of compulsion: the article requires compulsion to a clearly unlawful act. If the prosecution cannot confirm any form of the aim – obstruction, stopping or changing the activity, or compulsion – the qualification becomes doubtful. Procedural time limits and the rules for collecting evidence are defined by other provisions.
The Role of Video Evidence and the Time Factor
In resistance cases time works against the evidence: video recordings are deleted, and witnesses' recollection changes over time under the influence of probabilities and external pressure. The defense's first task is therefore to request and fix all relevant material in a timely manner – the protector's body-camera recordings, the recordings of surrounding objects and independent filming. Obtaining that material later becomes much harder.
The second task is working with witnesses: independent witnesses – passers-by, neighbors, participants – are often precisely the people who describe the full picture of the conflict. Their timely examination and the proper recording of their testimony frequently decides the fate of the case.
How a Defense Lawyer Assists in Article 353 Cases
The lawyers of Legal.ge work on cases of resistance against representatives of authority: we assess the correctness of the qualification, examine the substantiation of violence and of the aim, the episodes of group commission and repetition, and represent your interests at every stage. In such cases timely engagement – before the video material and the witnesses' recollection change over time – is particularly important.