Introduction
This report investigates two neighbors who were discovered grappling in the front yard of the front house on a battle-ax block. As police officers approached, the two males were separated and identified as Fitzwilliam Darcy and George Wickham.
Background
Mr. Wickham resides in the rear house, while Mr. Darcy resides in the house at the front. Mr. Wickham was arrested and charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm under S.59 of the Crimes Act 40/1900 NSW. Mr. Wickham spoke with his solicitor, exercised his right to silence, and refused to be interviewed. The custody manager granted him conditional bail with conditions protecting Mr. Darcy. His solicitor, Derek Johnson, wrote a letter to the commander of the police area command. He requested a withdrawal of the charges and provided the reasons why the charges might be deficient.
Comment
The main issue raised in the letter was the absence of evidence supporting the appropriateness of the charge. As stated by the lawyer of Mr. Wickham, allegations were made from the report based on the observations of the second officer who interviewed Mr. Darcy first. The officer noticed and documented the reddening on Mr. Darcy’s cheek. He instantly assumed that Mr. Wickham made the corresponding physical attack against Mr. Darcy and allegedly was the initiator of the conflict. However, further investigation suggested that neighbors or other people did not support or witness this claim. Mr. Wickham’s charge could be inappropriate due to the lack of evidence of his motivations.
The first argument made by the solicitor concerned the fact that there has not been found enough evidence supporting the accusations of physical assault. The only evidence in place was the reddening on Mr. Darcy’s cheek, and it was not proved that Mr. Wickham was the initiator of the conflict. As initial reports by the witnesses suggested, Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham started yelling at each other as Mr. Wickham drove down the driveway. According to the witness, Mr. Darcy threw a bin on the moving vehicle of Mr. Wickham. The police officers were called by the neighbors, who witnessed only a glimpse of the conflict. Thus, the lack of evidence suggests that Mr. Wickham could not be guilty of committing the attack on Mr. Darcy.
The second argument made by the lawyer stated that the intentions of Mr. Wickham were not proved to be hostile. To support this claim, he proposed the observations of the neighbors who witnessed the initial moments of the conflict. One of them noticed that Mr. Darcy threw a bin on Mr. Wickham’s vehicle when he attempted to leave the area. He also mentioned that Mr. Wickham occasionally drives at high speed. This fact may suggest that Mr. Darcy was the possible initiator of the conflict, and Mr. Wickham had no intention of confronting him.
Another argument of the letter was the fact that the only evidence of the physical attack was minor and insufficient to lead to the charge. As mentioned, the second officer noticed the reddening on Mr. Darcy’s cheek, and it was used as proof. However, as the solicitor claimed, redness on the skin is transient and trifling and could not be viewed as physical injury. Yet, even a slight change in the skin could be used to verify physical harm. Therefore, the argument in the discussion could not be perceived as valid.
Conclusion
To summarize, the issue concerns two citizens who were seen wrestling on the ground. Mr. Wickham was charged with assault due to the reddening on the cheek of Mr. Darcy. The evidence suggests that Mr. Wickham might not be the initiator of the conflict since he was driving in a fast-moving car when Mr. Darcy approached him. Witnesses claimed that Mr. Darcy threw a bin at his vehicle. Since Mr. Wickham was seen driving at high-speed multiple times, an assumption could be made that this behavior provoked Mr. Darcy’s approach. Therefore, Mr. Wickham might not be the initiator of the conflict. Also, the lawyer proposed that the severity of the physical injury could not be satisfactory for the appropriateness of the charge. However, this evidence could still prove Mr. Wickham’s fault if it was documented that he committed the assault. Since there was no evidence of that, Mr. Wickham’s intentions could not be proved as hostile. Due to the lack of evidence proving Mr. Wickham’s fault, I believe that the accusations against him could be incorrect.
Recommendation
After considering the evidence and arguments, I recommend dismissing or significantly reducing the charges.