The offense of obstruction of justice refers to the possibility of preventing or failing the judicial process or the possibility of creating a miscarriage of justice, and its purpose is to ensure the proper conduct of the legal process, to strengthen the public's confidence in the actions of the judiciary and law enforcement authorities. This offense relates not only to the criminal judicial process, but to any judicial proceeding, including civil and administrative proceedings, and even pre-judicial proceedings, such as investigative proceedings by the investigating authority. Obstruction of justice may take place in a variety of ways, including on the procedural level and on the evidentiary level.
The Factual Basic Requirement Does not include the existence of a consequential component. Thus, it does not matter whether the acts of disruption did indeed lead to the prevention of the judicial process, to its failure, to its failure in part or in its entirety, or to a miscarriage of justice. As argued in the case law, the behavioral component of "doing something" is formulated very broadly, and the examples cited in the section, such as concealment of evidence, are not exhaustive, as evidenced by the alternative "or in some other way" (see: Criminal Appeal Authority 7153/99 Elgad v. State of IsraelIsrSC 55(5) 729, 743 (2001)).
The Requirement of the Mental Foundation It is of criminal thought, awareness of behavior and circumstances, which can also be proven through the use of the presumption of deliberate blindness, plus special intent with respect to the purpose of preventing, failing or perverting the judicial process. A "judicial proceeding" in this regard also includes a criminal investigation. Thus, the act is done out of an aspiration or goal to achieve the prohibited purpose, which this statutory provision seeks to prevent (see: Gavriel Halevy Theory of Penal Law, Vol. 4, pp. 313-314 (2010)). This offense applies The Rule of Views, with regard to proving the special intention. According to the expectation rule, conscious expectation, in practice, when the behavior takes place, that the realization of the goal is a near certainty possibility, is equivalent to the special intention that the goal will indeed be realized, and it serves as a substitute for the special intention that relates to the goal.