A TATTOOIST who split a woman’s tongue, sliced off a nipple and removed an ear has admitted GBH despite customers’ consent.
Cops launched an investigation into TV star Brendan McCarthy’s bizarre procedures carried out over a four-year period in his ‘DR Evil’s Body Modification Emporium’ in Wolverhampton.
McCarthy, who was previously seen performing a procedure on Channel 4’s Body Mods, carried out the operations at Dr Evil’s Body Modification Emporium – his tattoo studio in Wolverhampton city centre.
The 50-year-old had previously denied six charges – three of causing GBH with intent, and three alternative offences of inflicting GBH without intent.
But today at Wolverhampton Crown Court McCarthy changed his plea to guilty to the first three charges.
He admitted removing the left ear of a man, using a scalpel to split the tongue of a female customer and removing the nipple of a third client on separate occasions between 2012 and 2015.
Judge Amjad Nawaz told the defendant: “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.”
The original pleas of not guilty were based on the fact the three alleged ‘victims’ had each consented to what happened but Judge Nawaz ruled that consent was not a defence to a criminal charge.
This was upheld after the defence took an appeal to the High Court where the case was heard by three judges including the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.
They ruled that the procedures were not comparable to tattoos and piercings.
They conceded he had done quite a good job on the ear removal but maintained it was not in the public interest that somebody could wound another for no good reason.
‘INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO MOST’
The High Court judgement continued: “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.”
Permission to take the appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.
Mr Harpreet Jhawar, defending, said McCarthy had the support of “all of his customers” and ran a “good and established” business.
But the prosecution maintained “surgical procedures” had not been followed, so unlawful acts had been committed.
Throughout the lengthy legal process McCarthy has been remanded on bail.
He is forbidden from carrying out any body modification procedure or work that involves the removal of body parts.
The case, in which reporting restrictions were lifted, was adjourned to March 21 for sentencing.