DPP v Smith [2006]
Share
DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin) dealt with the question of whether cutting off someone's hair without consent constitutes actual bodily harm under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA).
Smith, the defendant, was awakened by his girlfriend while he was asleep. In response, Smith climbed over her and forcefully cut off her hair. Subsequently, Smith was charged and convicted under Section 47 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
When the case came before the High Court, Smith appealed the conviction, arguing against the characterisation of cutting hair as constituting actual bodily harm. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the court.
The court's decision rested on the interpretation of actual bodily harm under Section 47 of the OAPA. The judgment affirmed that, in the context of an assault, cutting off a person's hair without their consent could indeed be considered as causing actual bodily harm. The ruling highlighted the broad scope of harm encompassed by the term "actual bodily harm" and underscored that physical harm need not be extensive or severe to meet the threshold.
This case contributes to the legal understanding of what actions may constitute actual bodily harm within the realm of assault offences. It demonstrates that even seemingly less severe acts, such as cutting off hair, can fall within the ambit of actual bodily harm when committed forcefully and without the individual's consent.
Smith, the defendant, was awakened by his girlfriend while he was asleep. In response, Smith climbed over her and forcefully cut off her hair. Subsequently, Smith was charged and convicted under Section 47 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
When the case came before the High Court, Smith appealed the conviction, arguing against the characterisation of cutting hair as constituting actual bodily harm. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the court.
The court's decision rested on the interpretation of actual bodily harm under Section 47 of the OAPA. The judgment affirmed that, in the context of an assault, cutting off a person's hair without their consent could indeed be considered as causing actual bodily harm. The ruling highlighted the broad scope of harm encompassed by the term "actual bodily harm" and underscored that physical harm need not be extensive or severe to meet the threshold.
This case contributes to the legal understanding of what actions may constitute actual bodily harm within the realm of assault offences. It demonstrates that even seemingly less severe acts, such as cutting off hair, can fall within the ambit of actual bodily harm when committed forcefully and without the individual's consent.
