Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of justice is the criminal offence, under section 139 of the Criminal Code, of wilfully attempting in any manner to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice. The offence is broad and captures a wide range of conduct — from witness tampering and evidence destruction to influencing public officials in the administration of justice. Section 139(2) is straight indictable with a maximum of 10 years; specific sub-offences (such as section 139(3), corruptly influencing a witness) carry their own penalties.
Elements
The Crown must prove three elements: (1) the accused engaged in conduct; (2) the conduct had the tendency to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice; and (3) the accused acted wilfully — that is, with the intent to bring about the prohibited result, or with knowledge that the conduct would likely have that effect. The offence does not require that justice was actually obstructed — only that the accused wilfully attempted to do so.
Common scenarios
Recurring obstruction patterns include: pressuring or threatening witnesses to change their testimony; destroying or altering documents subject to a subpoena or police seizure; lying to police during a criminal investigation; tampering with physical evidence at a crime scene; fabricating evidence; bribing or attempting to bribe public officials; assisting an accused to flee the jurisdiction; and improper communications with jurors. The breadth of the offence captures conduct well outside formal court proceedings.
Obstruction of a peace officer
Section 129 creates the related but distinct offence of obstructing a peace officer in the execution of duty. Common scenarios: refusing to identify oneself during a lawful investigative detention, physically interfering with an arrest of another person, or providing a false name during a police investigation. Section 129 is hybrid with a summary maximum of 2 years less a day and an indictable maximum of 2 years. The line between mere non-cooperation and criminal obstruction is often contested.
Defences
Defences include: absence of wilful intent (the conduct was not undertaken with the purpose of obstructing); the conduct did not have the tendency to obstruct (the threshold isn't met); lawful authority (claiming privilege, exercising legitimate rights); Charter-based challenges to the investigation; and identification issues. Charge specificity matters — vague or overbroad obstruction allegations can fail at trial.
Sentencing
Sentencing for obstruction is driven by the seriousness of the underlying matter affected and the degree of impact on the justice system. Sentences for serious cases — witness tampering in violent prosecutions, document destruction in major fraud files — can be substantial. First-offender low-end obstruction cases sometimes attract non-custodial outcomes.
Related glossary terms
