Law for nonlawyer

Essentially, there are laws governing criminal offences as well as civil offences. In addition to underscoring the punishment that the offenders should be accorded, the laws offer principles that need to be put in consideration before the suspects are justified to have committed the alleged offences. In this consideration, law is an instrument of furthering justice and ensuring that all individuals are treated equally. Offences related to assault are defined to be criminal by the law. This is due to the fact that they expose the individual to harm or danger that compromises their life. Put differently, assault is a criminal offence that compromises the life of a victim. It exposes the victim to danger and/or instils a demeaning sense of fright. Usually, the legal implications of assault are immense. For this reason, it is important for the prosecutors to weigh the options and establish that the offense actually occurred. It would be unfair to prosecute a person if it has not been clearly established that the offense actually happened. It is against this background that this paper explores the guidance and general principles that need to be put in consideration when making the decisions regarding whether to prosecute Billy for the alleged assault. Generally, assault is defined as any act, as opposed to a simple omission, in which an individual recklessly or intentionally causes the other to apprehend unlawful and immediate violence. As in R v Burstow. R v Ireland (1998) 1 AC 147, fear is an inherent factor of assault. In addition, assault does not necessarily constitute physical contact with an individual that alleges to have been assaulted. In light of Barwick CJ in The Queen v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at 472, the mere instillation of fear amounts to assault (Loveless 42). With reference to the case study, Billy assaulted the youngsters psychologically. Arguably, the two children were filled with fear when their mother was hit in their presence. In this sense, Billy is liable for the offence of assault. The principle of recklessness is also important in establishing the charge of assault. In instances where the crown relies on recklessness to make the vital decisions and where physical force is not applied, Monaghan indicates that it is essential for one to prove that the accused was aware that the complaint is likely to fear that s/he would at that particular point in time be subjected to unlawful and immediate force (64). Regardless of this knowledge, the accused went ahead to take the respective risk. In instances where physical force is applied, the crown needs to prove that the accused was sure that the complaint would actually be exposed to unlawful force, however minimal, as a result of what he was just about to do, but still took the risk that the respective incident might happen. A classic exemplification of this is by R v Savage. DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 (Monaghan 65). With reference to the case study, Billy clearly knew the implications of hitting his wife with a leg of a chair on her head. It has not been indicated whether he was under the influence of alcoho