Okay, I got two questions regarding this
1. How come shaving someone's head is "actual bodily harm"?
2. The runt called 999, why didn't he get a bollocking seeing as the matter clearly wasn't an emergency?
(, Thu 19 Apr 2018, 23:35, Share, Reply)
I imagine there's precedent in case law where hair has been included as part of the body for the definition of bodily harm
Oherwise it's like saying ripping off someones aerial on their car doesn't count for insurance purposes.
But yes, calling 999 does seem an overkill to a haircut
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 0:07,
Share,
Reply)
christ, I bore myself sometimes
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 0:08,
Share,
Reply)
Overkill?
I'd say that a 10-year-old boy under attack from a 21 year old man "while others sat around and laughed" is a damn fine reason to call 999.
(, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 5:50, Share, Reply)
under attack with mousse and comb
he wasn't being beaten
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 10:42,
Share,
Reply)
If only there were some source other than your imagination by which we could seek clarity on matters of criminal law.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 9:41,
Share,
Reply)
I used to create training for the coppers in the UK at the police training college in Hendon; criminal damge, PACE, misuse of drugs, etc
it was a few years ago now but I probably know far more than the layman. The statutes tend not to go into exhaustive definitions, e.g. "Spitting is but licking is not within the definition, unless it's on the eyeball", but instead rely on case law (unlike Frog law). It would take the CPS a few minutes of tapping to look at relevant precendent in GBH and Haircutting before deciding to proceed, if indeed the news report was accurate about the charge
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 10:32,
Share,
Reply)
For common assault
you don't even need to touch someone - a threat will do
Make contact and it's actual bodily harm -Worth bearing in mind next time you think about grabbing someone's lapels.
The problem comes at the upper end where 'grievious bodily harm' has covered everything from broken facial bones to that guy who had himself euthanised following total paralysis, blindness and constant paid from an acid attack.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 6:45,
Share,
Reply)
Sam Fox's first attempt "needed polish"
(
drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 8:00,
Share,
Reply)
Time to drop the Lapel Chat
Acknowledged
(
gaijintendo Regular Member, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 9:54,
Share,
Reply)
In liberated France newly emboldened froggies would publicly and forcefully shave the head of women who had, ahem, collaborated with the Nazis.
It was intended to humiliate and temporarily mark them, and was very obviously a physical assault. I really don't see what you aren't getting here.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 12:05,
Share,
Reply)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (taken from wikipedia)
Cutting hair
In DPP v Smith (Michael Ross), the defendant held down his former girlfriend and cut off her ponytail with kitchen scissors a few weeks before her 21st birthday. The Magistrates acquitted him on the ground that, although there was undoubtedly an assault, it had not caused actual bodily harm, since there was no bruising or bleeding, and no evidence of any psychological or psychiatric harm. The victim’s distress did not amount to bodily harm. The Divisional Court allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, rejecting the argument for the defendant that the hair was dead tissue above the scalp and so no harm was done. Judge P said:
'In my judgment, whether it is alive beneath the surface of the skin or dead tissue above the surface of the skin, the hair is an attribute and part of the human body. It is intrinsic to each individual and to the identity of each individual. Although it is not essential to my decision, I note that an individual's hair is relevant to his or her autonomy. Some regard it as their crowning glory. Admirers may so regard it in the object of their affections. Even if, medically and scientifically speaking, the hair above the surface of the scalp is no more than dead tissue, it remains part of the body and is attached to it. While it is so attached, in my judgment it falls within the meaning of "bodily" in the phrase "actual bodily harm". It is concerned with the body of the individual victim.'
It has been accepted that actual bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim, and which is more than transient or trifling. To damage an important physical aspect of a person’s bodily integrity must amount to actual bodily harm, even if the element damaged is dead skin or tissue. As Creswell J. commented in his short concurring judgment:
'To a woman her hair is a vitally important part of her body. Where a significant portion of a woman's hair is cut off without her consent, this is a serious matter amounting to actual (not trivial or insignificant) bodily harm.'
(, Fri 20 Apr 2018, 13:30, Share, Reply)