Who Is Right? Nurse or Judge?

Boyfriend Chops Off Long Ponytail Of Girlfriend - Who Sues - Judge Rules Against Girlfriend.

Taken from New Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01 /19/nhair19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/19/ixhome.html

My hair was my pride and joy. He knew how much it meant to me'
By Nick Britten
(Filed: 19/01/2006)

A dental nurse whose ponytail became the subject of High Court deliberation after it was cut off by her boyfriend said yesterday that he had destroyed her "pride and joy".

The issue of whether chopping off Michelle Tether's 10in ponytail constituted a serious assault on her was referred to the judges after magistrates ruled that it did not because hair is technically dead.

Miss Tether said the effect on the unwanted haircut, by her former boyfriend Michael Smith, felt like an assault, had destroyed her confidence and left her traumatised. She had spent months growing it and felt forced to wear a wig as it grew back. She even moved house because of the stress.

Smith was charged over the incident but cleared of assault causing actual bodily harm by Dudley magistrates, who said there was no evidence of actual bodily harm, but on Tuesday the High Court judges referred the case back to them.

Welcoming the decision, Miss Tether, 21, from Netherton, West Midlands, said: "I'm a bit worried the trial is going to bring it all back but I would like to see him punished for what he did.

"It was terrifying. My hair was my pride and joy - it took me ages to grow it that length and then he has done that to it. I suppose he knew how much it meant to me.

"I'm still angry about it. I spent loads of money trying to get it repaired. I had hair extensions - which cost me about £140 - to make it look normal because it was all different lengths.

"I had to wear a wig for three months. He set fire to one of them after I had it for a week and then had a bandanna to cover it up at work for six months because I couldn't do anything with it.

"I've had to move away because of him."

Unlike the magistrates, the two High Court judges ruled that hair was still part of the body, was "vitally important" to a woman, and was regarded by some as their "crowning glory", so cutting it off constituted an assault. Magistrates will now review the case.

Smith said yesterday that he cut off Miss Tether's hair with kitchen scissors because "she stressed me out", but said he was shocked by the High Court ruling.

He said: "How can they stand up in court and say there was no case to answer and then say there is?

"I was asleep in the bedroom and had already told her I was going to cut her hair off. She knew I wasn't joking and when she woke me up we were arguing.

"I admitted cutting her pony tail off but I didn't plead guilty to ABH - my solicitor said it was nowhere in the book of law. I would have admitted common assault."

He added that he had pleaded guilty at the same hearing to setting fire to Miss Tether's wig.

**************************************************

What's your opinion on this?  Should the judge have ruled against the obviously abusive boyfriend? 

Also...if she didn't want him to cut it and he did it with kitchen scissors (which aren't very sharp, usually), there must've been some sort of physical struggle between them, right?  If I was her counsel I would've got him for ABH on that one, especially if there is a noticeable difference in their height/weight/strength.

The question really is should the courts have backed up this poor woman or not?  Obviously this was a case of assault and the boyfriend is obviously a nut job but the question goes back to the fact that he cut off 10 inches of her ponytail and was not punished by the judge. 

Does this set a legal precedent that lets others know it is OK to cut off someone's long hair?  The point that the judge made was that the hair "was dead" so there was no harm done.

So the question....was the judge right about "no harm done because the hair was dead" or is the woman right to receive some justice for her hair being cut off in obviously an abusive action.

That was my question.

Here's my opinion for what it's worth.  I think the problem is the severity of the charge.  Was it assault?  Yes.  Was it ABH (I'm guessing this is Assault with intent to do Bodily Harm)?  Probably not.  He should be found guilty of a lesser crime and did admit that he would have pleaded guilty to a common assault charge.  It might be that it's impossible to find him guilty of ABH just be the exact definition of ABH.  They definitely should bring charges against him, but they need to bring the right charges against him.  He's a jerk no matter how you look at it and needs to be tarred and feathered and left in front of the courthouse for a few days like that.

The BF sounds like a control freak who feels like he can control her if he cut off her "pride and joy". I mean I do not think the point should be so much teh hair but the fact that this did effect her emotionally.

Also could you label your hair as your property? It's dead but that does not mean you did not own it and it was yours. He damaged what was hers and should pay the consequences. I hope she broke up with him.

I'm trying to grow my hair long and dang...I would be so sad if my BF just grabbed my hair and cut it off. I'm only growing it to BSL though...but still.

tdouty wrote: Was it ABH (I'm guessing this is Assault with intent to do Bodily Harm)?

ABH = actual bodily harm.

Tyranna wrote: Her (I hope ex) boyfriend may not have struck her, but he did demonstrate an abusive, rather alarming mysogynistic streak in his personality.  But the best she can probably hope for is the lesser assault charge.  But in civil court, she might try sueing him. Though not related, I once saw some program on this serial killer who stalked young women with long hair, kidnapped them, purposely cut their hair off to apparently shame them, and then raped/strangled them.

Actually statistis have shown that serial killers and rapists will often look for women (if that is their target) with longer hair...especially when worn in ponytails...because they (this has come out in some studies) can get a better grip on them through the hair.  I did a lot of research on this awhile back and wrote a column for one of my editors about it.  She freaked when she read it (because I had researched statistics on it) and then decided not to publish it because it was "too scary".

I see it as an attack. He attacked her with scissors. If he had jumped on top of her and pinned her down while he cut off her clothing would that be an attack? What if this guy was not living with her? If an intruder broke into the home and cut her clothes off or cut her hair off wouldn't that be taken seriously?

Maybe the wrong charge was filed. I don't know the laws there so maybe there is a better law and maybe there isn't?

He violated her.

Violation
The act or an instance of violating or the condition of being violated.

as·sault (ə-sôlt')
n.

1. A violent physical or verbal attack.
2. 1. A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
   2. The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.
3. Law.
   1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
   2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
4. 1. Law. Sexual assault.
   2. The crime of rape.

v., -sault·ed, -sault·ing, -saults. v.tr.

1. To make an assault upon; attack.
2. To rape.

Now I'm not going to say that he raped her because many feel that rape is too strong of a word and should not be compared to the real rape. But he did violate her. He attacked her and took something of hers. He mugged her. If she was on the street and someone took her purse would that be a crime? Why is stealing her hair not a crime? He took something that belonged to her.

If she can't get him for criminal charges perhaps some sort of civil suit can be brought? I don't know if they have those over there either?

trophywife wrote: http://smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/18/1901wilcoxhair_narroww eb__300x318,0.jpg

IMO it's assault and battery.  I don't know the legal intricacies of specific charges so I'll leave it at that.

Karen, I recall the article you mentioned, and I believe it also said that  anyone whose hair was long enough to grab ahold of (at least a few inches long) could be restrained in that way by an attacker.  [Correct me if I'm mistaken.]

DaveDecker wrote: trophywife wrote: http://smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/18/1901wilcoxhair_narroww eb__300x318,0.jpg IMO it's assault and battery.  I don't know the legal intricacies of specific charges so I'll leave it at that. Karen, I recall the article you mentioned, and I believe it also said that  anyone whose hair was long enough to grab ahold of (at least a few inches long) could be restrained in that way by an attacker.  [Correct me if I'm mistaken.]

Hi Dave,

Yes.  Correct.  Even a few inches long will help a serial killer restrain their prey.  UGH.