LAW

Case Study

Case Study

Introduction

This essay deals with the case of a husband Billy and his wife Hilda. In this case Billy is accused of hitting her wife with the chair of leg on her head which caused her hospitalization. On the other hand, he was also found out be a drunk on his way to the hospital where he slaps the nurse under the influence of alcohol when she did not let him meet his wife Hilda. Now the Crown Prosecution Services has his case and this paper will provide them with the proper guidelines and principles to decide about the prosecution of Billy under given circumstances and accusations.

Discussion

Before prosecuting the case of Billy, the Crown court has to consider that Billy has broken several areas of laws that are the Family law under the domestic violence, Civil Law assault on nurse and criminal law assault with an object on her wife. While observing the place and the situation where Hilda was hit by her husband, the presence of their children age five and eight years comes into view. Here it is important to note that the exposure to the domestic violence place negative impacts on children and youth. It is due to the fact that safety, emotions and physical welfare of children are crucial points which needs to take care while making decisions in the domestic violence cases. The most important fact to notice is that Billy's action may fall under the attempt to murder case as he used chair leg as a weapon to hit Hilda on her head. The most suitable course of action will be assess through reviewing certain journals, legislations and articles which Crown court will take to prosecute the aces of Billy.

Assaulting Hilda

First it is important to consider that the attack of Billy on Hilda evoke an actual bodily harm which is contrary to the Offence against the Person Act 1931 section 47 (Sentencing Council, 2011, pp. 2-27). On the other hand his action also affects the causing/wounding obvious harm to the body with a purpose which contradicts with the section 18 of Offences against the Person Act 1861.What this suggests is that in practice the defence of 'reasonable chastisement' is abolished when physical punishment causes actual bodily harm, as defined in the Offences against the Person (Offences against the Person Act 1861) as any injury calculated to interfere with the health or welfare of the victim, not necessarily permanent, but must be more than transient and unimportant (Greaves, 2010, pp. 3-4). It is not necessary that the injury or wound is permanent, but it should not merely transient or trifling. The maximum penalty in the event of a conviction is five years in prison.

Offences against the person in 1861 called crimes of wounding or inflicting serious bodily harm with guns or weapons attempted strangulation or hanging of another person giving poisonous or drugs for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another crime; bodily injury by explosion or other dangerous ...