About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


50 U.N.B.L.J. 171 (2001)
Mistake of Law and Obstruction of Justice: A "Bad Excuse"... Even for a Lawyer!

handle is hein.journals/unblj50 and id is 175 raw text is: MISTAKE OF LAW AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: A BAD EXCUSE... EVEN FOR A LAWYER! Lucinda Vandervort* Introduction In Regina v. Murray', the learned trial judge, Justice Gravely, errs in his interpretation and application of the law of mens rea in the offence of wilfully attempting to obstructjustice2. In view of his findings of fact and law, including the determination that the accused knowingly and intentionally committed the actus reus of the offence and the absence of any suggestion that he lacked awareness of any relevant facts, there is no question in law but that Kenneth Murray was liable to be, and actually should have been, convicted. Nonetheless, the trial judge concluded that Murray's alleged belief, that his actions were required by his duty to his client, raised a reasonable doubt about his intention to obstruct justice and entitled him to be acquitted. In his reasons for judgment, the trial judge analyzes mens rea as if there is a colour of right defence to the offence of obstruction ofjustice. In law, however, no such defence exists to this offence. Consequently, even if Mr. Murray did honestly believe that he had a duty to his client not to disclose the existence of the video tapes, that belief could not provide him with an exculpatory defence. In Canada, mistakes of law do not excuse accused persons from responsibility for criminal conduct in the absence of a statutory exception.' No exception exists to the offence of obstruction of justice. Yet the Crown did not choose to appeal and thereby signaled its acceptance of the legal analysis adopted by the trial judge. By contrast, if the analysis proposed in this piece had been adopted, the Crown should have prevailed at trial and, if unsuccessful at trial, would have had a right of appeal on a question of law. * Associate Professor of Law, University of Saskatchewan. '(2000), 186 D.L.R.(4th) 125 (Ont.Sup.Ct.J.). 2 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985 c.- C, s. 139(2). lbid., s.19.