A tattoo artist branded “Dr. Evil” has admitted causing grievous bodily harm in a landmark case after he split a customer’s tongue, removed an ear and sliced off someone’s nipple.
Brendan McCarthy, 50, pleaded guilty to the bizarre offenses in what is believed to be the first case of its kind after carrying out the harmful body modification procedures at his studio in the UK.
A court heard at the time of the offenses that McCarthy had been working without the appropriate qualifications at “Dr Evil’s Body Modification Emporium” in Wolverhampton, England.
On Tuesday McCarthy pleaded guilty to three counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent at Wolverhampton Crown Court.
He admitted splitting a woman’s tongue with a scalpel in July 2012, removing a man’s nipple in August 2012 and removing another man’s ear in July 2015 — all without using anesthetics.
The ear belonged to 43-year-old customer Ezechiel Lott — the other victims have not been named.
McCarthy, who no longer runs the studio, was granted bail until March 21, when he will be sentenced.
The case has previously been referred to as a “test case” and Judge Amjad Nawaz said it “would not be an easy sentencing exercise.”
A probe was first launched into McCarthy’s activities after complaints were made from people who had seen images of his work online.
The tattooist was arrested in December 2015 after concerns over his lack of medical qualifications, the unsuitability of his salon and unregulated actions.
McCarthy previously denied the charges and made an application to the Court of Appeal claiming consent given by his clients provided him with a lawful defense.
But prosecutors argued customers could not fully consent and understand the risks involved as McCarthy was not medically qualified nor registered with The General Medical Council.
“Your honor is familiar with the history of the case — all avenues of appeal having been exhausted,” Prosecutor Jonas Hankin said.
He previously told appeal judges the work amounted to “cosmetic surgery” and were “serious irreversible procedures” which had an “adverse physiological consequences and involve significant risk.”
Defense attorney Andrew Smith said: “It’s going to be my submission ultimately that the particular facts may allow the court to depart from the sentencing guidelines.”
The public gallery at Tuesday’s hearing was packed full of McCarthy’s relatives and supporters.
Speaking outside court, McCarthy said: “I’m going to try and put this out of my mind and try and get some normality back.
“It’s been a horrendous 15 months and I’d just like to thank my supporters from all over the world.”
Rhiannon Jones, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said afterward: “This is a landmark case involving body modification.
“This prosecution was not brought to seek to curtail individual choice or freedom of self-expression but because McCarthy, who was licensed to carry out tattooing and body piercing, was performing what were significant surgical procedures in a tattoo studio in Wolverhampton.
“The CPS presented expert evidence as to the risks to those involved, risks they would not have been fully aware of when consenting to these procedures.
“This case confirms the existing law that surgical procedures must be carried out by properly trained, qualified and regulated surgeons or health care professionals.
“McCarthy was none of these and as a result his surgical procedures, albeit carried out at the request of his clients, were unlawful.”
The Court of Appeal previously ruled that the issue of consent could not provide a relevant defense to the charges he was facing.
“We are told that the appellant, in fact, attended various short courses, but he has no medical qualifications which equip him to carry out these surgical procedures, deal with adverse consequences and still less to make any judgments about the mental health of his customers,” Lord Burnett of Maldon said.
“In our judgment, it is not in the public interest that people should try to cause, or should cause, each other actual bodily harm for no good reason. So in our judgment, it is immaterial whether the act occurs in private or in public; it is an assault if actual bodily harm is intended and/or caused.”
Experts in the case also said the removal of an ear gave rise to a risk of “moderate to severe” hearing loss and injury to the facial nerve.
They added tongue-splitting procedures were also liable to heavy-bleeding, infection and have an “adverse impact on both speech and feeding.”