8 months jail for a humiliating haircut to a 10 y.o.

bilbot79

I completely agree with what the judge said here but 8 months jail...8 months!! For being an asshole?

I think this is harsh, not taking away from the fact that it was a s****y act. When I was reading it I actually thought it was going to say 'Lahore, Pakistan's rather than Bedford.' And I actually think 20 lashes would be a more appropriate punishment here.

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/barber-who-gave-boy-10-humiliating-haircut-jailed-36825948.html

hullaballoo

You know the way people here give out about the judiciary and perceived light sentences. Well this is what happens when the judiciary bow to populist pressures and adopt a "harsher sentencing" policy. Jail for stupid stuff.

Incarceration is still regarded as a port of last call here and only where other sentencing options are unavailable/have been tried before and not worked etc.

But sending people to prison has a detrimental effect on offenders and society as rather than reforming/rehabilitating the individual, it is attributable to a rise in rates of recidivism.

vicwatson

Ah yeh and a child pornographer (almost 60,000 images) walks out of court scott free. Joke.

Bubbaclaus

vicwatson wrote: »

Ah yeh and a child pornographer (almost 60,000 images) walks out of court scott free. Joke.

You're comparing 2 different jurisdictions.

vicwatson

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You're comparing 2 different jurisdictions.

And what's your point?

Bubbaclaus

vicwatson wrote: »

And what's your point?

That you are comparing sentences in 2 different jurisdictions?

GM228

I believe somebody misheard Herbert Spencer when he actually said it's "survival of the thickest".

wexie

Omar, 21, of Bedford, pleaded guilty to causing actual bodily harm and was jailed for eight months. He had no previous convictions.

Does 'actual bodily harm' not have to involve....well.....actual bodily harm?

Samuel T. Cogley

Something something Garlic man something.

Peregrinus

wexie wrote: »

Does 'actual bodily harm' not have to involve....well.....actual bodily harm?

Yes, but actual bodily harm is a low threshold. A haircut is obviously bodily, and a humiliating haircut is obviously harmful, so there you go. grievous bodily harm is a much higher threshold.

GM228

I'm surprised the haircut passed the UKs damage must be "more than merely transient and trifling" test required for ABH.

Also surprised he was to be tried on indictment rather than summarily especially considering it was a first offence.

EdgeCase

Some of that time my be suspended, but it's an assault. It's an awful thing to do to anyone.

I mean can you imagine if your kid went to the barbers and he "punished him" by cutting off his hair?!?

GM228

EdgeCase wrote: »

Some of that time my be suspended, but it's an assault. It's an awful thing to do to anyone.

I mean can you imagine if your kid went to the barbers and he "punished him" by cutting off his hair?!?

The likely/eligibility release date is listed as 20th August on his sentence file.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Abdulrahim-Omar-22722-1.law

(Not sure if others can not view that page if not registered).

iamwhoiam

Sorry I can't read either link . What was the barber punishing the child for ? What had the child done ?

GM228

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Sorry I can't read either link . What was the barber punishing the child for ? What had the child done ?

The sentence file does not give that information, all it states is:-

Distinguishing Features/Facts

He pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) in Bedford, Bedfordshire, on 18 December 2017. He shave his victims hair off in front of people at a barber shop to punish him. 

The judge said: "This offence was the premeditated humiliation of a 10-year-old. It was despicable conduct to treat a child in that way."

According to news reports the child was trying to use a razor and the barber was punishing him to show him a razor was dangerous. It's unclear what type of razor or if for example it was just a blade.

iamwhoiam

GM228 wrote: »

The sentence file does not give that information, all it states is:-



According to news reports the child was trying to use a razor and the barber was punishing him to show him a razor was dangerous. It's unclear what type of razor or if for example it was just a blade.

Thank you . As I think the childs misdemeanour would be relevant in this case

Johnboy1951

If the child was in the barbers then there must have been some reason for it.
Presumably he wanted a hair cut.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but actual bodily harm is a low threshold. A haircut is obviously bodily, and a humiliating haircut is obviously harmful, so there you go. grievous bodily harm is a much higher threshold.

By that logic every hair cut is bodily harm.

What would be the punishment for the barber if he gave an unacceptable hair cut to a customer?

There must be some back-story to this that is not in that report linked to.

A prison sentence for actual bodily harm is completely off the wall for a deliberately bad hair cut ....... which is all the info provided in the link.

Peregrinus

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

By that logic every hair cut is bodily harm.

All kinds of things that are perfectly benign or beneficial in normal circumstances, like haircuts and medical treatment and contact sports, become assaults occasioning actual bodily harm (or worse) if done without consent, or by fraud, duress or oppression.

dr.fuzzenstein

I wonder what's the most harmless thing that could be interpreted as assault?
Say someone is blocking your path and you lightly touch his arm to indicate him to move, he takes a dive and takes you to court.
Or he gets in your face. You happen to be smoking and blow smoke in his face.
Or you simply adopt an aggressive posture to intimidate him to move.
Could even a gruff "Move!" be classed as assault? A hard stare even?
Genuinely curios.

Samuel T. Cogley

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I wonder what's the most harmless thing that could be interpreted as assault?
Say someone is blocking your path and you lightly touch his arm to indicate him to move, he takes a dive and takes you to court.
Or he gets in your face. You happen to be smoking and blow smoke in his face.
Or you simply adopt an aggressive posture to intimidate him to move.
Could even a gruff "Move!" be classed as assault? A hard stare even?
Genuinely curios.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—


(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or


(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,


without the consent of the other.


(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—


(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and


(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.


(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.


(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

That's the Irish position at least.