R V Howard Case Analysis

As the trier of law, the Judge is obligated to weigh the competing needs of society, and conclude in a manner that results in the most justifiable satisfaction. However, due to the polar requirements of different individuals, the court may not be able to please every member of society. This juxtaposition of society’s needs is displayed in the case of R v Howard, where, although actus reus was proved, justice was not had for the accused, showcasing the nuance of law in Canada. On October 17, 1994, in Columneetza School, Kyle Rich, a notoriously reckless student, was fooling around in class while working with a dangerous tool: a radial arm saw. His teacher, Mr. Howard, repeatedly attempted to gain Kyle’s attention, but Kyle incessantly ignored …show more content…
Howard’s behaviour was extreme for any teacher, the Court does not believe that Mr. Howard should be charged with level 2 assault, as argued by the defence. Although the court believes the findings today were rational and justified, the court still believes that this may not satisfy the competing interests of society. To please all members of society, Mr. Howard would be reprimanded for his actions, and while the Crown believes he will certainly refrain from doing this in the future, due to the lack of concrete proof displayed by the Crown and an absence of support from the criminal code, the Court finds it difficult to condemn Mr. Howard for anything other than using an unnecessarily harsh form of …show more content…
When brought to the stand, he acted in an incautious manner, referred to other students as “chicks” and admitted to using crass language. Furthermore, the defence demonstrated that, although actus reus was proved, mens rea was not, because Mr. Howard didn’t hit Kyle on the head to hurt him, he only did so to keep the class going and prevent another student from facing harm. The Crown’s main argument relied on Mr. Howard’s precedent of being a harsh teacher, and his form of punishment could have caused emotional trauma. While this is legitimate, Mr. Howard is still protected under the criminal code.

To protect Mr. Howard’s rights to discipline his students without being found guilty of assault, as stated in the Criminal Code under section 43, the court believes that ruling Mr. Howard as not guilty was a rational response to the case at hand (Criminal Code). As a valuable member of society, a teacher’s job is to educate his or her pupils, and Mr. Howard was simply doing so by lightly tapping Kyle on the head; his right to discipline students is engrained in the fundamental criminal document of Canadian