Dr Evil: Body modification case the first of its kind for the courts
It was a case like no other, the details of which revolted many but were supported by thousands of other people.
An extreme body artist dubbed Dr Evil removed an ear, a nipple and split a tongue at the request of his customers.
Brendan McCarthy performed the bizarre procedures at his tattoo studio – called Dr Evil’s Body Modification Emporium at Princess Alley in Wolverhampton city centre – between August 2012 and July 2015.
WATCH Dr Evil on Channel 4 Body Mods show:
Warning: Contains graphic surgical scenes
The 50-year-old registered tattooist was charged in a unique UK court case after a police investigation, believed to have been triggered by a complaint from a rival tattooist, which had been launched four years ago.
McCarthy initially denied six charges, three of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and three alternative offences of inflicting the harm without intent, when he appeared at Wolverhampton Crown Court in September 2017.
But he changed his plea and admitted the three charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent when he reappeared at the same court last month.
Ear, nipple, tongue
He admitted removing the left ear of a man called Ezechiel Lott on July 23 2015; using a scalpel to split the tongue of an unidentified woman on July 23 2012 and removing the nipple of an unidentified man on August 16 2012.
And yesterday he was jailed for three years and four months.
The case, in which reporting restrictions have now been lifted, was adjourned after Mr Andrew Smith QC, defending argued: "While recognising these offences cross the custody threshold the facts of this case may allow the court to depart from the established guidelines."
Judge Amjad Nawaz told the defendant, who was remanded on bail until a pre-sentence report had been prepared: "These are serious matters and ordinarily the sentence of custody would be inevitable but there are differences in this particular case and we will deal with them at a later date. It is a difficult sentencing exercise."
The original pleas of ‘not guilty’ were based on the fact that the three alleged ‘victims’ had each asked for the irreversible surgery to take place.
But Judge Nawaz ruled that consent was not a defence to a criminal charge.
High Court ruling
This was upheld after McCarthy's legal advisers took the case to the High Court where the case was heard by three judges including the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales who rejected the appeal.
Their ruling explained: "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.
"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."
It was conceded that McCarthy had done "quite a good job"' on the ear removal but the judges maintained it was not in the public interest that somebody could wound another for no good reason.
The judgement concluded: "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."
Petition
Permission to take the appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.
This did not stop over 13,000 people signing a petition in 2017 praising the 'skilful, knowledgeable and hygienic' work of the tattooist while his customers rallied in support for him.
It urged: "Please sign to show your support for Mac and for the right to express ourselves in whatever modified manner we wish in a safe environment. Because Barbie & Ken aren’t everyone’s idea of beautiful."
Mr Harpreet Jhawar, who represented the defendant at an earlier court hearing, said: "My client has got the support of all of them. He tells me the police have contacted everyone in his diary. They have asked them if they would be willing to provide a complaint. Every single customer from the last two or three years has said 'no.'"
But the prosecution maintained that ‘surgical procedures’ had not been followed so unlawful acts had been committed.
Among the friends backing McCarthy was a heavily-tattooed man called Body Art who insisted that the defendant ran a 'good and established' business.
McCarthy, of Moreton Road, Bushbury, who has tattoos on his hands, face and neck and a ring inside his earlobe, was seen performing a procedure on the first series of Channel 4’s Body Mods.
Throughout the lengthy legal process he had been remanded on bail, with a condition banning him from carrying out any body modification procedure or work that involved the removal of body parts.
