There's a whole law course dealing with the questions you've raised, but here's some short answers that might help you
What about : when is assault a civil matter and when is it a criminal matter ?
Every assault is a civil matter, but only actions that contravene Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the NFOAP, 1997 are criminal matters
Does a criminal assault charge ( Gardai & DPP put the case together? ) require a higher level of proof ( how do you prove to a 'higher level'?) than a civil assault charge ( put together by a private individual and his legal advisers ?) ?
The burden of proof for criminal matters is "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas it's "the balance of probabilities" for civil matters. The upshot of it is that the gardai have to prove every element of the offence
For assault that means that the following have to be proved
No lawful excuse - e.g. self defence
It was intentional or reckless
There was an application of force or impact (self evident) OR
The victim was caused to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact
And that the accused did all this
If no evidence is given that, for example, that the person who committed the assault is the person standing before the court, the judge cannot convict the person. Many trials fail on silly prosecution errors like this
If so, if someone is found guilty of criminal assault can a civil action be taken against them for the same event in the expectation that it will not be contested ?
Most likely - it's pretty slam dunk as it has already been proved (to a higher standard of proof) that the assault took place, but how do you collect your judgment against the assailant?
After my original post a came across a reference to 'Common Assault' and then another type of assault which seemed to describe an assault which resulted in an injury (is it necessary that someone is injured for then to have been assaulted?) which lasted for more than a week but less than a year. If that is the case what would it be called ?
Irish law only recognises Section 2,3 & 4 of the NFOAP, 1997 as constituting assault. The distinguishments you refer to are probably Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH) The rough equivalents of them now are Assault Causing Harm, and Causing Serious Harm (note assault is not necessary for Causing Serious Harm - it's to cover sado-masochistic activities getting too far out of hand!!)
If someone is assaulted with a 'thing' ( rather than by hands, feet, head etc ) does this make the assault a different sort or class of assault ?[/QUOTE]
No, it's an aggravating factor (it "should" be factored into the sentence, but doesn't constitute a separate offence, unless it's a firearm, or syringe).
Back in the days when men were men and the King was on the throne I recall people being charged with Assault and Battery.
Is it still possible to be charged with A & B ?
If so, what is Battery and how does it differ from Assault
No A & B was abolished by the NFOAP, 1997, but remains as a tort (civil) matter
Battery is the physically making contact with person. Assault is the placing someone in fear of an immediate (or imminent) battery. For example if I suddenly jump up, and raise my fist in the air as if to hit you, and you genuinely believe that I am about to hit you, that is assault, whether or not I actually hit you. It is only if I hit you that it becomes battery.