DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin)

Facts

  • The defendant, a husband, cut off his wife's ponytail without her permission.
  • The magistrates' court dismissed the case, ruling that cutting hair did not fulfill the requirements for actual bodily harm (ABH) under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the magistrates' decision to the Divisional Court.

Issues

  1. Whether cutting off a substantial amount of hair without consent constitutes actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
  2. Whether hair is considered part of the body for the purposes of ABH.
  3. Whether the seriousness of the interference with bodily integrity in this action is sufficient to meet the legal threshold for ABH.

Decision

  • The Divisional Court held that hair is considered part of the body for the purposes of actual bodily harm, despite being made of dead tissue.
  • The Court determined that cutting off a substantial amount of someone's hair without consent is a significant interference with bodily integrity and can amount to actual bodily harm.
  • The decision clarified that only removal of a significant portion of hair may qualify as ABH, not trivial or minimal hair cutting.
  • The harm recognized by the law includes both physical and psychological effects, with the focus on the impact upon the victim.

Legal Principles

  • Actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 requires an assault that causes harm more than minor or temporary, directly resulting from the defendant’s actions.
  • Bodily harm is not confined to injuries of the skin or organs and can include interference with bodily integrity, such as non-consensual hair removal.
  • The gravity and context of the harm, including resulting psychological distress and violation of personal autonomy, are relevant to the determination of ABH.
  • The legal test looks at the effect on the victim, rather than only the means by which the harm is caused.

Conclusion

The Divisional Court’s decision in DPP v Smith confirmed that substantial non-consensual removal of hair constitutes actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, extending the definition of harm to include invasions of bodily integrity and psychological impact, and providing important clarification for the application of ABH in future cases.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal