England: ‘Dr Evil’ admits causing grievous bodily harm with tongue splitting and ear removal modifications

England: 'Dr Evil' admits causing grievous bodily harm with tongue splitting and ear removal modifications

A tattooist known as “Dr Evil” admitted causing grievous bodily harm by performing unlawful body modification procedures on clients.

Brendan McCarthy, 50, pleaded guilty to three charges of GBH in respect of a tongue-splitting procedure as well as removing an ear and slicing off a nipple.

Mr McCarthy carried out the procedures at Dr Evil’s Body Modification Emporium in Wolverhampton – without anaesthetic.

He admitted the offences this week following a two-year legal fight in which he claimed his clients’ consent to the procedures was a defence.

But judges in the Court of Appeal dismissed his claim, saying it was not in the public interest that a person could legally wound another for no good reason.

Judges additionally refused the tattooist permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

They did, however, accept that the ear removal had been performed quite well but condemned the practice of body modification in general.

They stated: “The case advanced by the appellant is that the procedures he conducted, albeit that they caused really serious harm, should be immunised from the criminal law of assault, just as surgical procedures performed by medical practitioners and those who take part in properly organised boxing matches attract protection.”

The ruling added: “There is, to our minds, no proper analogy between body modification, which involves the removal of parts of the body or mutilation as seen in tongue-splitting, and tattooing, piercing or other body adornment.

“What the defendant undertook for reward in this case was a series of medical procedures for no medical reason.

“Those seeking body modification of the sort we are concerned with in this appeal invited the appellant to perform irreversible surgery without anaesthetic with profound long-term consequences.

“The fact that a desire to have an ear or nipple removed or tongue split is incomprehensible to most, may not be sufficient in itself to raise the question whether those who seek to do so might be in need of a mental health assessment.

“The personal autonomy of his customers does not provide the appellant with a justification for removing body modification from the ambit of the law of assault.”

Share icon
Share this article: