La mens rea requise pour commettre l’infraction d’entrave à la justice nécessite la preuve d’une intention d’entraver la justice qui va au-delà de l’intention de poser un geste qui a pour effet d’entraver la justice. Il n’est pas suffisant de démontrer que l’accusé a fait quelque chose ou a omis de faire quelque chose qui a pu avoir un effet sur le cours de la justice

R v Nelson, 2016 SKCA 127

Lien vers la décision

[2]               It is not in dispute s. 139(2) establishes a specific intent offence. Before one can be found guilty of obstructing or attempting to obstruct justice, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the accused acted specifically to obstruct justice. A simple error of judgment or an inadequate exercise of discretion does not constitute the requisite mens rea for the criminal offence of obstructing justice (R v Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5 at para 52, [2007] 1 SCR 190). This Court has repeatedly held the mens rea for obstruction of justice involves proof of an intention to obstruct justice beyond just an intention to do an act which has the effect of obstructing justice (see: R v Ross, 2013 SKCA 45 at para 35, 414 Sask R 108; R v Yazelle, 2012 SKCA 91 at para 4, 399 Sask R 249). It is not sufficient that the accused did something or failed to do something which may have some effect on the course of justice. The accused must have wilfully committed an action or inaction which had a tendency to obstruct or pervert the course of justice and must have intended to obstruct or pervert the course of justice in behaving in this way (see: R v Easu, 2009 SKCA 31 at para 48, 324 Sask R 95 and R v Alsager, 2016 SKCA 91 at paras 45-57).