The accused was charged with obstructing a police constable by providing false information during a lawful police investigation at an airport.
The accused admitted to giving a false name to the officer but argued that no obstruction occurred because the officer quickly learned his correct identity from another officer within approximately two minutes.
The court found that the accused's false statement did in fact obstruct the officer in the execution of her duty, as the officer was diverted from her investigative duties to check the false name provided.
The court rejected the argument that only prolonged or significant obstruction constitutes the offence, holding that any lie that in fact obstructs police duties satisfies the actus reus requirement.
