R v Hibbert, [1995] 2 SCR 973, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on aiding and abetting and the defence of duress in criminal law.

The Supreme Court of Canada was asked to decide the applicability of the defence of duress in the context of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Finally, the trial judge failed to instruct the jurors that the common law defence of duress could excuse the accused even if the Crown successfully proved the elements of the offence.

The court interpreted the word "purpose" in s. 21(1)(b) as meaning "intent" and rejected the arguments that the accused must "desire" the outcome in order to be guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime.

The court found that a person acting under threats of death or bodily harm can in some cases negate the mens rea component of an offence.

The relevant question in each case will be whether the definition of the offence as written by Parliament is capable of supporting the inference that the presence of coercion can have a bearing on the existence of mens rea.