Tattooing and the UK Law - Case Study Example

Criminal Law Table of Contents Introduction 3 Case Overview 3 Discussions 5 Tattooing and UK law 5 The Criminal Liability of Anton In Relation To Claire 5 Criminal Liability of Anton towards Gary 8 The Criminal Liability of Henry 10 Conclusion 11 References 12 Bibliography 14 Introduction In the contemporary scenario, the use of various means and approaches towards presenting oneself as fashionable and stylish in front of others has become quite a common practice. These approaches include tattooing, cosmetic surgeries and body piercing among others. Among these approaches, the aspect of tattooing is considered as one of the most intriguing fashion trends, especially among the youngsters in the modern day era. Tattooing has been prevalent right from the olden days as a type of body modification, quite commonly observed among the young adults of today’s generation. There are several types of tattoos including traumatic, amateur and professional tattoos among others. Tattoos are usually drawn for the purpose of depicting symbols of religion; sign of love or for the purpose of any simple body decorations1. In the contemporary scenario, tattooing involves several legal regulations, which will be described in detail in the later sections of the paper with the reference to the case study of Anton. Case Overview In the case scenario provided, Anton is mentioned as an amateur tattoo artist. He has however been involved in performing tattoos for his various family members and friends, which gave him an opportunity to earn money through tattooing. Subsequently, grabbing the opportunity, after a point of time Anton decided to make money for himself from his skills of drawing tattoos. Though he was inexperienced in this particular profession, he was completely conscious of the health risks and regulatory complexities associated with this profession including the chances of transmissions of diseases via needles along with the norms of using a sterilizer among other functional principles of such a profession. Anton was also aware of the fact that he was not allowed to tattoo any person below the age of 18 years as per the regulatory norms. This implied that he was only permitted to tattoo adults legally. His first professional assignment comes in the form of tattooing Gary, a 23 years old boy, who desired to get a tattoo with the name “Hatters” written in large and attractive letters designs on his biceps. However, after the completion of the tattoo, Gary noticed that the name was misspelled and instead of ‘Hatters’ it was written as ‘Haters’. Owing to the mistake of Anton, Gary had to suffer a painful and bear an expensive cost for the correction of the tattoo from another experienced tattooist. This incident resulted in Gary’s permanent fear for tattooing. Hence, it can be concluded that Gary had to suffer both physical and mental harm due to the misconduct of Anton. As per the case, Anton’s careless attitude continued in his second assignment as well, where a client named Claire was diagnosed with blood poisoning, because of his negligence to sterilize the needle before using it. Consequently, Claire had to suffer physical pain for a considerable period. This indecent can be considered as Anton’s violation of the health and safety norms associated with this particular profession. In another instance, Mel, a 16 year old girl, was tattooed by Anton. In this case, Anton permitted Henry (one of his friend) to assist him in making the tattoo for Mel, in exchange of £500, as he was infatuated with her. However, Anton completely disregarded taking an account of Henry’s professional experience and training in tattooing, which was nil. Nevertheless, Henry was given the task to clean the chosen site for the tattoo with alcohol. Notably, despite of suspecting Mel to be under 18 years, both Henry and Anton continued with the procedure of drawing the tattoo. These entire set of incidents has raised certain legal questions on the approach and conduct of Anton as well as that of Henry in the third instance. Discussions Tattooing and UK law As discussed in the earlier sections of the paper, tattooing is regarded as one of the most commonly used approaches of body modifications, conducted through the insertion of ineradicable ink into the dermis layer of human skin. Notably, in the modern day situations of tattooing has become quite a common approach of body decorations all over the world. However, there are certain rules and regulations associated with the profession of tattooing in order to comply with the health related concerns of the customers. ‘The Tattooing of Minors Act 1969’, ‘Law for the Under 18’s’, ‘The Offences against the Person Act 1861’ and ‘the general consumer law’ are applicable in this context2. These laws mainly relate to health, safety and licensing rules relevant with the profession of body piercing and tattooing. The Criminal Liability of Anton In Relation To Claire In this particular case, it is apparent that Anton, though an amateur in tattooing, is aware of all the laws associated with his profession, which imposes criminal liability on him with respect to the case of Claire. It can be affirmed in this context that Anton had deciphered a certain degree of negligence towards Claire’s health concerns as a customer, while drawing a tattoo for her. In this particular assignment, Anton used his sterilizer improperly, owing to which, he used an infected needle when tattooing Claire. This resulted in blood poisoning to Claire, which further kept her ill for a considerable period of time; hence, affecting her physically as well as financially. Stating in accordance with the enforceable legislative norms, this approach of Anton can be treated as quite offensive as it raises certain health issues for Claire and poses a threat on her wellbeing3. As per the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, activities involving tattooing or any other ‘cosmetic body piercing has the potential to cause infections or other toxic reactions. Contextually, anybody who is associated with activities of tattooing or any similar form of body modifications through piercing, it is crucial to have a license for the same4. However, in this particular case, Anton was acknowledged as an amateur tattoo artist. In addition, he took up the assignment of Claire without having a license of any kind. Hence, his conduct can also be seen as a criminal offence as per the law. Furthermore, the local government Act 1982 also requires tattoo artists to take formal training in the concerned profession, which is again missing in the case of Anton. This again raises questions on his eligibility to get involved in such as profession, which makes him liable under the relevant criminal law concerning the protection of Claire’s health benefits as a customer5. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 will also be applicable in this particular case scenario. According to the Act, professionals should ensure maximum safety for the health and wellbeing of their clients while delivering any sort work for them. In this regard too, the approach of Anton can be questioned upto a larger extent as he showed a careless attitude towards delivering his work for his client, further harming the health and safety of the same. This can also be seen as a criminal offence from the part of Anton towards Claire6. Additionally, the offences committed against the Person Act 1861 will also be applicable in this particular case scenario. According to this particular Act, harming others physically or mentally through any particular conduct is a serious criminal offense and consequently, penalties should be imposed on the culprits. Section 18 of the Act hereby describes that if a person causes a wound or a serious bodily harm to another person intentionally or knowingly, should be considered as a convict of an offence for which, he/she might need to face imprisonment for lifetime, as the maximum extent, with heavy compensation in usual scenarios. In this particular case, Anton was observed to be knowingly involved in harming Claire with an infected needle, which caused her blood poisoning. Though it is known that Claire recovered fully from her illness after a point of time, it cannot be ignored that the results might also have been life threatening to her if remain unidentified. Hence, the approach of Anton can be considered an offensive based on the grounds of criminal law and hence, considered subjected for strict punishments. Again, as per the general consumer law of the UK, if a customer is not satisfied with the work of the seller or the artist (such as in the case of tattooists), he/she will be liable to get compensations for the same. Contextually, in this particular case scenario, the work received by Claire from Anton was not considered to be of a satisfactory level as per her desire. Furthermore, Anton has also been observed to heavily compromise with the health and safety rights of Claire, which again depicts a breach of contract as per the consumer law7;8. Therefore, all these aspects make Claire liable to get compensation from Anton. Criminal Liability of Anton towards Gary In this particular scenario, the work delivered by Anton showed considerable amount of negligence, which resulted in huge monetary loss for Gary. Observably, Gary desired to get a tattoo in fancy letters with the name ‘Hatters’ pierced on his biceps. However, Anton unintentionally misspelled the name as ‘Haters’, which Gary was able to notice he had returned home. As a consequence, he had to correct the spelling of the tattoo from another tattoo artist, spending a considerable amount of money, besides suffering severe physical pain to have the tattoo removed and re-pierced again. In this particular scenario, offences against the Person Act 1861 will be applicable along with the consumer law of the UK. It is noteworthy in this context that owing to certain aspects including unclarity and lack of precision of the law, recommendations have been made towards reformations in accordance with the Person Act 1961. As per these recommendations, a person will be deemed as guilty of any sort of offense, if he is intentionally involved in causing injury to other9. In this regard, it can be depicted that the conduct of Anton towards Gary in misspelling the tattoo was a mistake and was not an intentional attempt owing to which, his approach cannot be considered as offensive as per the Person Act 1961. However, s20 of the offences against the Person Act 1961 after the probable reformation depicts that a person will also be considered guilty of a fatal offence if he/she is involved in irresponsible conduct leading to financial or physical harm to others. The injury or the harm will include physical injury causing internal or external pain, unconsciousness and impairment among others. The injury, as per the act, will also include the disturbance of mental health. Contextually, it has been noted in this particular case that the approach of Anton was quite irresponsible with his work depicting maximum carelessness. Apparently, his drawn tattoo for Gary was misspelled, which again shows his lack of concentration and professionalism towards his responsibilities as a tattooist. His conduct further resulted in both physical and mental injuries for Gary, causing him pain while undergoing a rectification of the tattoo by another experienced tattooist besides causing him a considerable amount of monetary loss. Furthermore, this particular incident left Gary with a fear of having a tattoo, which can be treated as a mental injury. Hence, considering these facts related with the case, it can be affirmed that as per the provisions of Violence Reforming the Offences against the Person Act, the approach of Anton was an offence towards Gary. Contextually, as per the law, Anton might need to face an indictment of seven years for his criminal offence10;11. Again, it can be depicted from the case that the work delivered by Anton for Gary with regard to draw the tattoo was of unsatisfactory level. As a potential customer, Gary did not receive the kind of product desired by him from Anton. Contextually, the consumer law of the UK will also be applicable in this particular case. As per the general consumer law of the UK, if a consumer is dissatisfied with the art of the artist or the terms and conditions of his work including the aspects of health and safety, he/she will be protected as per the law. As per this provision related to consumer protection, the approach of the artist of not being able to deliver the desired level of satisfaction to the customers through his/her profession, is to be considered as a breach of contract by law, for which, the artist will be liable to provide compensation to the customers. As per the fact of this particular case, Anton has failed to deliver a satisfactory level of work to Gary for which, he will be liable to give compensation to Gary as per the general consumer law of the UK12. The Criminal Liability of Henry In the case involving Gary, Henry and Mel, it has been noted that Mel was quite enthusiastic towards getting a tattoo with her boyfriend’s name in written. However, Mel was a minor of 16 years old and thus she should not have been allowed to get a tattoo for her as per the law of the UK. However, the concern was disregarded by Henry as well as Anton in this case, which makes both of them legally liable. Furthermore, Anton, who was persuaded and forced by his friend Henry to assist him in making the tattoo, was further observed to have offered £500 for the same, which can be categorised as bribery in conducting an irresponsible act. In this case, both Henry and Anton suspected that Mel was below 18 years and was not legally liable to get a tattoo. Despite of being familiar with all these facts, both Henry and Anton went on with the procedure to draw a tattoo for Mel. In this particular case, the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 will be extensively applicable. As per the act, it is an offence for tattooing minors, i.e. people below the age of 18 years, apart from any medical purposes. The law further states that any person who is involved in committing such an offence will be liable to pay compensation of not more than £50 as per the law. Again, if the person repeats his offence for the second time and so on, he will be liable to pay a fine of £100 as per the law. In this particular case scenario, it will be vital to mention that Henry was actively involved in the procedure of drawing the tattoo for Mel. Hence, he will be equally liable to pay fines as per the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969 of UK13. Conclusion From the overall analysis, it can be comprehended that tattooing is one of the most common approaches of body decorations in the modern day scenario, which includes many similar and unique concerns towards the health and safety of the consumers to that applicable in any other services sector. Following the case of Anton, it can be asserted that he is liable on legal grounds to ensure all the requisites for the safety and health concerns of his customers, being in the profession of a tattooist. However, he failed to do so in the case of Gary, Claire and Mel as well. These incidents make him criminally liable with respect to the provisions of ‘The Offences against the Person Act 1861’, ‘The Tattooing of Minors Act 1969’, ‘Law for the Under 18’s’ and ‘the general consumer law’ practiced in the UK. Illegal involvement of Henry in tattooing for Mel, a minor, also makes him liable on legal grounds, irrespective of the fact that Henry is not a professional tattooist to be qualified as an assistant in the profession. References Asif Tufal, ‘Reform of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person’ [No Date]. (Home) (accessed 31 January 2014). Crown, ‘Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969’ [2014]. (Home) (accessed 31 January 2014). Cristine Christodoulou, ‘Non-Fatal Offences against the Person: Where to Now?’ [2013]. (TSL) (accessed 31 January 2014). Edinburgh Council, ‘Skin Piercing and Tattooing’ [No Date]. (Law and Licensing) (accessed 31 January 2014). Department of Health, ‘Local Government Act 2003’ [No Date]. (Documents) (accessed 31 January 2014). Louise Smith, ‘Regulation of tattooing and body piercing businesses’ (2010) PL 3 Mayo Clinic, ‘Tattoos: Understand risks and precautions’ [2014]. (Home) (accessed 31 January 2014). Medway Council, ‘Regulations’ [2014]. (Home) (accessed 31 January 2014). Bibliography ECHR, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Introduction’ [2013]. (Home) (accessed 18 December 2013). Joshua Rozenberg, ‘Laying down the Laws: human rights court shouldnt have last word’ [2013]. (The Guardian) (accessed 18 December 2013). Read More