Law for Non-Lawyers: The of Billy - Case Study Example

“Hilda has been taken to hospital after being hit over the head with a chair leg by Billy, her husband. The incident tookplace in front of their two children age five and eight. Billy arrives at the hospital an hour later having stopped off at the ‘Two Ducks’ for a few pints, and is told by the nurse that he cannot see his wife. Billy slaps the nurse across the face, and the police are called. Billy is subsequently arrested for assault on both the nurse and his wife. The need Crown Prosecution Service now have Billy’s file. Apply the Guidance and general principles that must be taken into account by them when considering the decision as to whether they should prosecute Billy for the alleged assaults” This paper deals with the case of Billy and his wife and Billy hits his wife on the head with a chair, and she is hospitalized. Thereafter, Billy is under the influence of Alcohol, and he slaps the nurse when he is denied permission to see the wife in the hospital. Under these circumstances, the crown court has to put into consideration the various fields of law that Billy fails to adhere to; for instance, the Family Law- under the domestic violence, the criminal law- Assault on a public servant (Nurse) (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). Further insights into this situation is the place where the crime occurred, there is the presence of Children aged 5 and 8. Based on family laws, it is apparent that domestic violence propagates perilous effects on children because, at this ages children are at a critical stage of growth and development and exposure to domestic violence may change their perception and strategies to use in making decisions (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). Finally, the Crown Court may file a case against Billy on attempted murder on Hilda in using a chair leg to hit his wife. Using some peer reviewed journals, secondary sources, publications, and statutes, the paper shall analyze a justified decision that the Crown Court may take concerning Billy’s situation (Asmus 115–158). According to Dr. Badawi & Jamal (1971), the both civilization and Christianity values the wellbeing of women and restores their rights. Therefore, a woman is a companion to the husband but not a legal obligation to him. In the first case, Billy assaults his wife by hitting her with a chair leg harming her. This is against the laws defined under section 47 on offences Against the Person Act 1861. Based on the offences Against the Person Act 1861, Billy’s act of assault falls under the intent of causing resulting to bodily harm or wounding (Asmus 115–158). In view of both the Crown Court sections, the court has every right to file a case against the assaults committed by Billy on Hilda and the nurse. However, the Crown Court will only open a case against Billy if Hilda accepts to file a case against Billy for the injuries sustained. For this reason, any course of action by the crown court is dependent on the Hilda’s decision, and the testimony that the children may provide to the Court on what they saw. They are the eyewitnesses on the circumstances surrounding the guilty consciousness of Billy (Asmus 115–158). Therefore, if Hilda takes a decision of opening a case against her husband, then, these puts the Crown into a better position of prosecuting Billy and justifies the issues surrounding the violence Act against Hilda. Hilda is a victim of violence to her husband the moment her rights are violated by Billy. It is very apparent that, Billy intended to cause violence because at the time of the crime, he was in his right frame of mind. Under the Family Violence Act, domestic violence is any form of mistreatment caused to a family member. The form of violence may involve children, close/elderly relatives, but violence occurs between spouses (Asmus 115–158). Based on all these facts and the course of action taken by Hilda, Crown Court prosecutor may consider sentencing Billy for approximately 4 – 5 years. Considering the case, or rather, this incidence occurred in May 2004, a man battered his wife in the presence of his children, and the terms of sentence resulted to 4 and half years behind bars. Base on this case, the court held that, there was leniency in the sentencing since such a domestic crime should have attracted an imprisonment term of five and a half to six years (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). However, after considering the law of double jeopardy, the four and half year’s term was the right action undertaken. Pursuant to section 47 on Offences Against the Person Act 1861, a physical bodily harm also carries with it a capital penalty or accusation of 5-year imprisonment or an indefinite fine. As per the Family Law Act 1966 ‘any threats or violence to either the parties in the marriage bracket and the children should be dealt with according to the statutory provisions, and such a person should be isolated from the community (UK Parliament Acts, Family law act 1996 c27). It is also clear that the injury caused by Billy on his wife was very intense that Hilda had to be taken to hospital. In this regard, Billy has a case to answer regarding the wounding and the physical injuries caused that he caused to her wife. This is contrary to section 18 of offences Against the Person Act 1861. For this reason, going against the law under the section 18 may attract a capital punishment, or rather a lifetime imprisonment. However, in case, the Crown Court manages to open a case to sentence Billy, there is a need to provide hard evidence that proofs him guilty. For instance, there would be a need to for more concrete evidence, for example, sustained injuries or marks that Hilda sustained after being battered. In addition, eyewitnesses are also important in testifying what they saw or heard (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). In this case, under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 it affirms on the special measures. It affirms that if a party commits violence in front of children under the ages of 14 years, then the person is liable for committing violence to the children and the violated party. The offence committed on the children may be either emotional or physical. Billy is therefore liable for causing violence to either to both the wife and children (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). As mentioned, children can either suffer emotional or physical injuries depending on the effect of violence committed. In this case, it implies that, they can either witness violence or become victims of violence. They may also live in an environment that is full of intrusion and intimidation, an aspect that can affect the emotional status. Domestic violence can therefore ruin their life totally. When all this information and evidence is accumulated, then, the jury feels the impact of violence, and this assists determine the children’s emotional status. Such information is very essential when prosecuting Billy (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). It does not necessarily required both the children to testify on the violence committed, either of the kids can bear witness on about the violence, as long as he/she was present during the occurrence of the scene. If there are any physical injuries that Hilda sustained during the attack from Billy, then, this is enough evidence to file a case against Billy. However, a physician must prove their existence by carefully examining them and giving a report to the court. After considering all the factors and accumulating all the evidences that will amount to filing a case against Billy, then, there is still one more thing that the Crown Court should do before persecuting the victim. The crown court must ascertain that the Billy is a person of sound judgment and less temperamental. This is a factor that assists the court ascertain the security of the children in the future. It is also possible to analyze the character of Billy and argue that, he is a person who can never be responsible for the welfare of the family. For this reason, the court should handle Billy’s case in a more serious manner (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). This paper also takes into consideration the unsocial behavior of Billy in the hospital the under the influence of alcohol. His unsocial behavior is suggestive since it defines that Billy is a character that is a threat to the society, and the only way to tame his behavior is apprehending him in custody. Billy’s action of slapping the nurse when denied entry to the hospital while under the influence of alcohol is classified as an assault towards a public servant, and this is actionable in under the National Health Service Act 1977 (Binder, Meeker and James 698–708) Billy has a case to answer concerning the assault he committed against the nurse. The assault against the nurse carries with other breaches of law. The first one is the assault on a public servant and criminal law; the second breach of law caused by Billy is the anti-social behavior and another assault to another party (Binder, Meeker, and James 698–708) In this circumstance, crown court can resolve to take a strong course of action on Billy as the law affirms that’ “assaulting a public servant, similar to the current crime of assaulting a police officer, is to be introduced by the Home Office”. This case amounts to a heavy penalty that ranges from three years and above imprisonment. As held in a similar case in the year 2001, a case of “R v McNally 2000 1 Cr. App. R (S) 533 – the plaintiff was with his son when he was involved in a heated argument with a health officer and retaliated by punching him on the face. The defendant had a clean record and the charges laid against him were the “ABH” charges. The court held that, the defendant should serve half-year imprisonment (Binder, Meeker and James 698–708). Another case that was similar to Billy’ case was in 2002, that involved R V Eastwood [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 72 (at 318). In this case, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and in A&E he assaulted the nurse throughout the X-ray course. The nurse-sustained injuries in her hand and the defendant were charged with ‘ABH. The court held that in such situations, the commencing point after being tried is 2 years with sentence of 1 year three months imprisonment after the defendant is found guilty. Considering the way the two cases were judged, the, Billy is liable for assaulting the nurse and impeding the emergency workers. His case falls under the Emergency Workers (Obstruction), Act 2006, which was in force 20 February 2007) (Binder, Meeker, and James 698–708) However, in Billy’s argument, the nurse denied him the access to the hospital and denied him the chance to see his wife. It is apparent that, the nurse denied Billy the access to see his wise based on the circumstances, and she was preventing Billy from harming Hilda as he did before. Billy was acting under the control of alcohol, and that can be the only reason that can be established why the nurse could not allow Billy meet with his wife. Conversely, if it is proved that Billy intended to see his wife only without any other reason thereafter, then, there is something to worry about. We are not certain why Billy stopped for few pints before going to the hospital (Binder, Meeker, and James 698–708) The nurse acted on the grounds that, Billy could have a similar motive of hitting Hilda, so that he could extend his anger and resentment on her. The crown court should consider these factors before taking any legal action. In order to prosecute Billy and consider that he assaulted the nurse, there is need for more evidence. The evidence from the nurse is not enough evidence. Maybe, there is a need to have eyewitnesses, cameras and other patients that witnessed the scene. Billy breached the section 4 of the Anti-social Behavior Act 2003 and Section 32 of the Anti-social Behavior Act 2003 as well as violating the Assault on Emergency and Public Servants. This amounts to enough evidence and Billy is subject to prosecution in the court of law. The only argument that Billy could hold against the nurse is that while committing the crime he was not in his right frame of mind, and he could therefore not think straight. The doctor needs to prove this and provide a substantial report to the court (Goldfarb 582–631). In order to strengthen the evidenced collected in persecuting Billy, the authority can investigate from the people that witnessed the occurrence of the scenario. This helps the court analyze the depth of the problem. Furthermore, the evidence from Hilda’s medical history, the Eyewitness, and the children are enough evidence that could be applicable in this case. In conclusion, the analysis is clear enough that Billy has gone against the Family domestic violence laws, the children domestic violence, and assault to public servant (Goldfarb 582–631). Works Cited Asmus, Mary; Ritmeester, Tineke; and Pence, Ellen. "Prosecuting Domestic Abuse Cases in Duluth: Developing Effective Prosecution Strategies from Understanding the Dynamics of Abusive Relationships." Hamline Law Review 15 (1991): 115–158. Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence. Final Report, U.S. Department of Justice. Bachman, Ronet, and Salzman, Linda E. "Violence against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey (NCJ-154348)." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1995. Binder, Arnold, and Meeker, James W. "Implications of the Failure to Replicate the Minneapolis Experiment Findings." American Sociological Review 57 (1993): 698–708. Buzawa, Eve S., and Buzawa, Carl G. Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1992. ——. Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice System Response. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1996. ——. Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1992. Daly, Martin, and Wilson, Margo. Homicide. Aldine de Gruyter, 1988. Dutton, Donald G., with Golant, Susan K. The Batterer: A Psychological Profile. New York: Basic Books, 1995. Edelson, Jeffrey L. Intervention for Men Who Batter: An Ecological Approach. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1992. Fagan, Jeffrey. "The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1996. Ferraro, Kathleen J., and Boychuck, Tascha. "The Court's Response to Interpersonal Violence: A Comparison of Intimate and Nonintimate Assault." In Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice Response. Edited by Eve S. Buzawa and Carl G. Buzawa. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1992. Pages 209ff. Fineman, Martha, and Mykitiuk, Roxanne, eds. The Public Nature of Private Violence. New York: Routledge, 1994. Gelles, Richard, and Loseke, Donileen R., eds. Current Controversies on Family Violence. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1992. Goldfarb, Sally. "Describing Without Circumscribing: Questioning the Construct of Gender in the Discourse of Intimate Violence." George Washington Law Review U.S. Department of Justice. 64 (1996): 582–631. (Ferraro and Boychuck 209). (Goldfarb 582–631). (Binder, Meeker and James 698–708) (Asmus 115–158). Read More