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 - 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? 

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.

I agree with Tdouty. Regardless of the fact that we're all biased hairy members of a hair board, hair is still scientifically dead.

Say, imagine if it really was ABH and other nutjobs could sue salons. ...

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

ABH = actual bodily harm.

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. 

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 think they were using the wrong charge.  Assault I would say he is *definately* guilty of.  ABH is a bit more difficult because yes, hair is dead, as was pointed out.

She could still sue for damages I think, because it caused a lot of distress.  Maybe a restraining order...

Where did this actually happen?

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.

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

enfys wrote: I think they were using the wrong charge.  Assault I would say he is *definately* guilty of.  ABH is a bit more difficult because yes, hair is dead, as was pointed out. She could still sue for damages I think, because it caused a lot of distress.  Maybe a restraining order... Where did this actually happen?

In England somewhere.

Tyranna.....I so didn't need to know that last part

I agree with PurpleBubba.  She may not be physically permanently scarred, but she may very well be emotionally permanently scarred.  Her ex-boyfriend should be held responsible for that.

DaveDecker wrote: trophywife wrote: http://smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/18/1901wilcoxhair_narrowweb__300x318,0.jpg - 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.

trophywife wrote: tdouty wrote: Was it ABH (I'm guessing this is Assault with intent to do Bodily Harm)? ABH = actual bodily harm.

Ah ha, thank you for clearing that up. In this case I would have to agree YES it's assault, NO it's not taken to the next level. Frankly I'm just glad that it's the woman's hair and not her arm. What a creep!

AnaisSatin wrote: trophywife wrote: tdouty wrote: Was it ABH (I'm guessing this is Assault with intent to do Bodily Harm)? ABH = actual bodily harm. Ah ha, thank you for clearing that up. In this case I would have to agree YES it's assault, NO it's not taken to the next level. Frankly I'm just glad that it's the woman's hair and not her arm. What a creep!

Well the current law of England and Wales draws only a very fine (some might say blurry) distinction between assault and ABH - for example, restraining someone around their hand or wrist to the extent that a bruise appears is ABH - so it's all a bit of a minefield.  In this instance, it appears that the girl's counsel was gunning for ABH so that this horrible bloke would receive a harsher punishment.

Hope that makes sense.

How I didn't know about this when it was in England I don't know....

Yes, trophywife, I have to agree that the laws of the land here aren't that distinct.  Sometimes I think going for a higher charge makes it seem like the victim is over-reacting, and doen't help much.

What the nurse needed was a long haired lawyer who understood her

Still a very very very horrible (understatment) thing for someone to do to a supposed loved one.

enfys wrote: How I didn't know about this when it was in England I don't know....

You think this would make the news when there is Wayne and Coleen's latest argument to report on?!  ;)  Not to mention the antics of Jodie Marsh and Prince Harry...

In this case I think creative sentencing would be in order.  It was assault, but maybe not assault with intent to do bodily harm, since "hair is dead".  Because "she was stressing him out" is no excuse however, and he should have to pay for this assault.  Were I the judge, I'd order his head shaved every week until her hair grew back to its original length.  If he took away her choice of appearance, his choice in the matter should be taken away until hers grows back.

Gavel goes BANG!

Susan W wrote: In this case I think creative sentencing would be in order.  It was assault, but maybe not assault with intent to do bodily harm, since "hair is dead".  Because "she was stressing him out" is no excuse however, and he should have to pay for this assault.  Were I the judge, I'd order his head shaved every week until her hair grew back to its original length.  If he took away her choice of appearance, his choice in the matter should be taken away until hers grows back. Gavel goes BANG!

Hi Susan,

Well said.  I love the idea of making the guy shave his head. 

This whole subject creeps me out.  Just last week I had someone reach over and touch my hair in a supermarket and say...oh how pretty...it was some guy...and I still struggle with what to say.  Also, I tend to wear my hair pinned up while out in public to avoid this danger. (I know, another topic for another day).

So the thought that my S.O. would chop off my hair in a fit of rage.  Sends shivers.  But I do love the forced head shaving. :-)

Hi Karen,

I didn't visit  Hair Talk for too long. Sorry for that.

I was really astonished by this topic/article. You are very right to oppose this decision. Hair is not dead. It's a vital part of a girl/woman and very often their crowning glory. I would say that the judge was wrong. There was a lot of harm done. It's a violation of personal integrity to cut of someone's hair without permission. Hair is a part of someone's personality and the described act was of course NOT in accordance with human rights and the freedoms associated with these rights. I hope that this woman will get the change to get justice and that she will get back her long hair.

Karen, this brings me to your final point. The whole subject creeps me out also. I have to be alert with my long hair. I prefer to wear my hair flowing straight down my back but do so  at home and in office. I do not feel safe in supermarkets,cinema's concerthall's and especially not in public transport unless I wear my hair in a braided bun, two Dutch braids or a pony-tail. And even than! 

We should remenber that long hair is a treasure and you should always be aware of that!

Anne-Loes

Just last week I had someone reach over and touch my hair in a supermarket and say...oh how pretty...it was some guy...and I still struggle with what to say.  Also, I tend to wear my hair pinned up while out in public to avoid this danger. (I know, another topic for another day).

Karen, this brings me to your final point. The whole subject creeps me out also. I have to be alert with my long hair. I prefer to wear my hair flowing straight down my back but do so  at home and in office. I do not feel safe in supermarkets,cinema's concerthall's and especially not in public transport unless I wear my hair in a braided bun, two Dutch braids or a pony-tail. And even than!

I realize I brought up the subject of that particular serial killer and all, but such an occurance would be extraordinarily rare.  Given that, I am surprised to see some of you put your hair up for purely defensive purposes.  Is this just to avoid the chance of a stranger touching it or is it also to avoid the chance of long hair getting caught in machinery or something (a thing I would be more worried about, say if my hair was of extreme length)?  Do people regularly mess with you because of the longer hair?

My hair is to my waist in back, but beyond the accidental brushing or maybe tugging in a crowded place like a hockey game or something, no one messes with me.

Anne-Loes wrote: Hi Karen, I didn't visit  Hair Talk for too long. Sorry for that. I was really astonished by this topic/article. You are very right to oppose this decision. Hair is not dead. It's a vital part of a girl/woman and very often their crowning glory. I would say that the judge was wrong. There was a lot of harm done. It's a violation of personal integrity to cut of someone's hair without permission. Hair is a part of someone's personality and the described act was of course NOT in accordance with human rights and the freedoms associated with these rights. I hope that this woman will get the change to get justice and that she will get back her long hair. Karen, this brings me to your final point. The whole subject creeps me out also. I have to be alert with my long hair. I prefer to wear my hair flowing straight down my back but do so  at home and in office. I do not feel safe in supermarkets,cinema's concerthall's and especially not in public transport unless I wear my hair in a braided bun, two Dutch braids or a pony-tail. And even than!  We should remenber that long hair is a treasure and you should always be aware of that! Anne-Loes

Hi Anne-Loes,

So good to see you visiting here at HairTalk. 

Yes..long hair is a treasure and I agree, we should always remember that.

I hope you would come back and see us again.  :-)

Tyranna wrote: Just last week I had someone reach over and touch my hair in a supermarket and say...oh how pretty...it was some guy...and I still struggle with what to say.  Also, I tend to wear my hair pinned up while out in public to avoid this danger. (I know, another topic for another day). Karen, this brings me to your final point. The whole subject creeps me out also. I have to be alert with my long hair. I prefer to wear my hair flowing straight down my back but do so  at home and in office. I do not feel safe in supermarkets,cinema's concerthall's and especially not in public transport unless I wear my hair in a braided bun, two Dutch braids or a pony-tail. And even than!  I realize I brought up the subject of that particular serial killer and all, but such an occurance would be extraordinarily rare.  Given that, I am surprised to see some of you put your hair up for purely defensive purposes.  Is this just to avoid the chance of a stranger touching it or is it also to avoid the chance of long hair getting caught in machinery or something (a thing I would be more worried about, say if my hair was of extreme length)?  Do people regularly mess with you because of the longer hair? My hair is to my waist in back, but beyond the accidental brushing or maybe tugging in a crowded place like a hockey game or something, no one messes with me.

I used to wear my hair up in the early days of HairBoutique.com when I actually packed boxed.  I used to get packing tape caught in it...OUCH.  But now, I am rarely in the warehouse these days.  So I wear it down in my office.  However, I am paranoid about being out in public by myself.  Yes, it has happened to me more than once that people, both men and women, have reached over and grabbed my hair without asking first...in public places like restaurants, movie theaters and grocery stores.  I once had a baby reach out when I was in a grocery store checkout lane and grab my hair and not let go.  That was humorous because the mother had to untangle us but the other times - not so funny.

So yes...it does and has happened.

Since my hair is just shoulder length at the moment, and I have never had hair longer than BSL, it comes as a shocker to my naive self that people actually are grabbing or touching your long hair out in public. I guess this is good to know....is it best to just keep it up as much as possible when out in crowds? Do you ever say anything to the offending (offensive) grabber/toucher? Thanks for the "heads" up!!

You know, I wouldn't worry about it if I were you gals.  Strangers touching your hair may never happen where you live and having fear about it will only upset you.  The more you fear something, the more likely it is to happen due to unwanted self-fulfilling prophecy (meaning -you are so afraid it will happen, that you picture it happening all the time, and that seeing it in your head all the time leads you to a situation where you accidentally cause the thing you fear to happen)....but that's kind of beside the point.  Whatever the reason, it may never happen, and fearing it constantly is only going to stress you out.