## 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.


DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin)