[Taurus]

I know how you feel, if someone cut my hair off I'd be distressed as then my head would look like a peanut. I have an odd shaped head

[yothi5]

(Original post by Hylean)
Wow, you really aren't reading the page at all.

It clearly says that he was originally acquitted and then the decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal, for the reasons outlined above. Seriously, actually read what was quoted fully, not just selectively. Thus, in the eyes of the law, it is a crime to be punished.

I never said Clerwell J was the other judge on the case, but that they were the other judge, as in two judges were mentioned: the judge in the appeal case who sentenced the person with ABH and Clerwell J, who gave his opinion on the case where he states that it is also ABH.

And what exactly is different? The simple fact is the Court of Appeal held that cutting off the girl's hair without her consent was ABH. The ruling makes no mention of her being held down. It was the act of cutting off the hair without consent. Same as in this. That the child is four means nothing.

It clearly shows, despite your apparently inability to read the words, that hair is integral to our identity and an attack on it is not as simple as "get over it, the kid was four."

And sarcasm is no reason to get it wrong.

I think I said in my first post?! You mean you didn't READ it?! I said that the man "held down" (pinned down his GF), indicating a degree of maliciousness and threat or danger and this did not happen in OP's case. Also, this involved a case of 2 sane adults, but a hormonal teenage girl and a 4 year old child. A 4 year old child is below the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland, and England and Wales. (Read my other quote where I say you talk bull). I mean...you didn't read it?!


Last line of yours? Petty.

[Alexandra's Box]

(Original post by katyness)
That's TSR's answer to everything -.-

Yes, but in this case it is actually true. See what people are writing about the varying age of the OP? And she isn't responding either.
It is a bit of an odd story.

[eight thirty]

its not like she cut your balls of or anything

just relax

[Hylean]

(Original post by yothi5)
I think I said in my first post?! You mean you didn't READ it?! I said that the man "held down" (pinned down his GF), indicating a degree of maliciousness and threat or danger and this did not happen in OP's case. Also, this involved a case of 2 sane adults, but a hormonal teenage girl and a 4 year old child. A 4 year old child is below the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland, and England and Wales. (Read my other quote where I say you talk bull). I mean...you didn't read it?!


Last line of yours? Petty.

Is it? I do apologise for wanting people to be correct, especially when the difference between assault and battery is so commonly misunderstood.

And, as I stated, the ruling makes no mention of him holding her down and specifies the cutting of the hair without permission. It is the cutting of the hair that is ABH, something you seem intent on ignoring.

Interestingly, in none of the case law can I find a statement that there must be "malicious" intent, only intent. Could you quote that for me?

Oh, and read my edit above.

Edit: The statement on intent is actually one of the reasons many of the activities in the BDSM community are illegal. If malice had to be involved, then they wouldn't be.

[Rossagle]

(Original post by Frequency)
Last summer my hair was really long, I was growing it so I could get a nice haircut. I got layers and a side fringe.
On my birthday in October, I was allowed to let one of my friend's sleep over. I chose one of my closest friends, but her mum suggested she bring her little sister as well, who is 4.
So we had the sleepover but when I woke up, my friend's little sister cut my hair! She cut a whole chunk off the back
I got really mad and told my friend and her sister to go home.
I know this happened months ago but I still can't get over it, it was my hair!
Now I'm afraid that if I wear my hair down everyone will notice and be like "wtf you do with your hair?"
I wore it down once and asked my my friends if it looked okay at the back, and they said it looked like layers.
I'm really trying to grow it back, but I'm just so upset
Please help?

I have to say I sympathise with you. I know how long it takes to grow long hair (not to mention trying to keep it in good condition too). I would have been mad too.
Even though the kid was four, I never did such a thing at that age, I mean I've never cut anyone's hair except my own.
I hope the child has learnt her lesson. In fact by sending them home you are teaching the child that she has done something wrong.

[pshewitt1]

could always go for the Emma Watson look, everyone loved what she did with her hair... :L

[yothi5]

(Original post by Hylean)
Is it? I do apologise for wanting people to be correct, especially when the difference between assault and battery is so commonly misunderstood.

And, as I stated, the ruling makes no mention of him holding her down and specifies the cutting of the hair without permission. It is the cutting of the hair that is ABH, something you seem intent on ignoring.

Interestingly, in none of the case law can I find a statement that there must be "malicious" intent, only intent. Could you quote that for me?

Oh, and read my edit above.

Edit: The statement on intent is actually one of the reasons many of the activities in the BDSM community are illegal. If malice had to be involved, then they wouldn't be.

(Original post by Hylean)
"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.""

As for the malicious intent, you'd have to prove that.

Whilst I'm not actually advocating the girl take the four year old to court, I am showing that the courts do recognise that hair is important to people, specifically women in this particular case, so Frequency has every right to feel violated or upset given what happened. People telling her to get over it because the girl was 4 are ignoring that. Sure, it's not the worst thing in the world, but then some people get freaked out by someone invading their personal space.

Highlighted in bold.

[Hylean]

(Original post by yothi5)
Highlighted in bold.

So, you are just ignoring the entire ruling by the judge and the comment by the other judge.

[alexchestfield]

punch that kid

[yothi5]

(Original post by Hylean)
So, you are just ignoring the entire ruling by the judge and the comment by the other judge.

Surely from my previous posts, you can tell that idfc about this case, the OP. I think the case is stupid and the OP is worse. I'm not a lawyer and even though I'm very bored, I don't want to spend my time reading a case about nonsense that is drier than a nun's ****. Good for the woman who's former BF didn't get away with it. You know that I think this case is nonsense and and OP is worse. She's an idiotic troll who likes to seek attention, if she changes her age every time she posts. Too bad someone got their hair cut off. Not as if they got an arm or a leg or a ball chopped off.

[CasualSoul]

Stop hyping -Get a weave sista

[Maxima]

People still haven't picked up on this OP? One day she's 18 wants to be an Author who's incredibly good at English, next day she is a 13 year old devoted Muslim and her Dad won't let her go out without putting on a Burka. Today she is some girl who had her hair cut at a sleepover. Damn, is that how much you crave sympathy? It must be good living an online fantasy, I wonder what you'll come up with tomorrow?

[PinkMobilePhone]

(Original post by madders94)
The OP is a well-known troll, their age changes with every thread (at one point they were a sixth former and then they were in Year 7).

oh lol - well just shows I must've been asleep recently

[mc1000]

(Original post by Andy16)
If you're this mentally scarred by only SOME of your hair being cut off, god knows how you would react to something like being mugged, or any legitimate thing to worry about.

Chemotherapy.

[Tortious]

(Original post by Hylean)
I understand how you feel. I'd be livid if someone cut my hair without my permission. Eventually it will grow back and even though the kid was four, they should've known better. Not fair to take it out on your friend, though.

It wouldn't be assault, as assault is to cause fear of physical harm. It would be battery.

People have been sent to jail for cutting a person's hair without consent. I believe they were charged with battery, but I'm not sure.

I appreciate this thread's four pages long, so someone may have answered you by now, but in case not:

First, she can't report the kid for the crime because there's a presumption that kids under 10 can't commit crimes. (This point isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I thought I'd throw it out there).

Second, yes, you're right - it's technically battery because you're applying force. However, there could still be an assault if OP apprehended (i.e. anticipated) that force was going to be applied to her. In cases where there's a battery preceded by an assault, it's often confusingly referred to as "common assault", hence the other poster's confusion.

Third, cutting hair can amount to a battery - to ABH under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in fact (which is significant since the maximum sentence for ABH is 5 years as opposed to six months!). It was held in DPP v Smith [2006] that hair is essentially "dead tissue" and cutting it "interferes with the health or comfort of the victim", mainly due to the embarrasment, I think - so it fell within the definition of ABH.

Hope you found some of this interesting!

EDIT: Oh, turns out you've already found DPP v Smith. You're right - the fact that he held her down is irrelevant, nor does there have to be malice (just intention to cut it or subjective recklessness (foreseeing the risk of his actions resulting in it being cut and continuing anyway - not that that's relevant here since it's a clear case of direct intent)).

[flying plum]

(Original post by Tortious)
I appreciate this thread's four pages long, so someone may have answered you by now, but in case not:

First, she can't report the kid for the crime because there's a presumption that kids under 10 can't commit crimes. (This point isn't directed at anyone in particular, but I thought I'd throw it out there).

Second, yes, you're right - it's technically battery because you're applying force. However, there could still be an assault if OP apprehended (i.e. anticipated) that force was going to be applied to her. In cases where there's a battery preceded by an assault, it's often confusingly referred to as "common assault", hence the other poster's confusion.

Third, cutting hair can amount to a battery - to ABH under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in fact (which is significant since the maximum sentence for ABH is 5 years as opposed to six months!). It was held in DPP v Smith [2006] that hair is essentially "dead tissue" and cutting it "interferes with the health or comfort of the victim", mainly due to the embarrasment, I think - so it fell within the definition of ABH.

Hope you found some of this interesting!

EDIT: Oh, turns out you've already found DPP v Smith. You're right - the fact that he held her down is irrelevant, nor does there have to be malice (just intention to cut it or subjective recklessness (foreseeing the risk of his actions resulting in it being cut and continuing anyway - not that that's relevant here since it's a clear case of direct intent)).

Thanks...that meant I didnt have to go and find a textbook

My favourite battery case was that one with the acid in the hand dryer. I've just depressingly realised that the reason dip v smith rings no bells is because it was decided over a year after i took crim on my llb. Boo, I'm getting oooold!

[Whatever9999]

Your soo immature get over yourself !it will grow back pshhtttttt

[Sadsnail]

how about putting a few micro ring extensions in yourself???

That should hide it fairly well and you can blend it in with the rest of your hair


I'd be so angry if this happened to me!!!

[Tortious]

(Original post by flying plum)
Thanks...that meant I didnt have to go and find a textbook

My favourite battery case was that one with the acid in the hand dryer. I've just depressingly realised that the reason dip v smith rings no bells is because it was decided over a year after i took crim on my llb. Boo, I'm getting oooold!

Wow, it's been a while then! And I thought I was old because I had to learn the old special and partial defences (DR and provocation) for my A2 Law, then the new ones under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 at undergrad.

What are you doing these days?