#crime #law #oapa
DPP v Smith  EWHC 94 (Admin) FACTS: Here the defendant, Mr Smith, cut off his estranged girlfriend's ponytail and some further hair from the top of her head. It was argued on behalf of Mr Smith that this act did not amount to 'actual bodily harm', in accordance with the legal definition provided in Miller, and as there was no evidence to suggest that this act had caused the victim psychiatric or psychological harm, there was no case to answer. HELD: Despite the fact that the defendant’s actions left no mark on the body or break of the skin, and that essentially he had cut 'dead tissue', it was still part of the body, which by cutting had amounted to an assault. As Sir Igor Judge stated:
'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 … it falls within the meaning of "bodily" in the phrase "actual bodily harm". It is concerned with the body of the individual victim.'
If you want to change selection, open document below and click on "Move attachment"
pdfcannot see any pdfs
|status||not read|| ||reprioritisations|
|last reprioritisation on|| ||suggested re-reading day|
|started reading on|| ||finished reading on|