A young barber found himself in a Sutherland court after a disagreement over a haircut bill escalated dramatically, resulting in him shaving a strip from his customer's head.
The Dispute That Led to Court
The incident occurred on November 25, 2024, at the Barberatzzi store in Westfield Miranda, south Sydney. Ali Akil, 22, provided a haircut to Alireza Kashef, 21, who requested a zero fade on the sides and scissors on top.
According to police documents, the cut took about 30 minutes and Mr Kashef was initially happy with the result. However, a conflict arose at the counter when Mr Kashef offered $30 for a service Mr Akil stated cost $40.
After a back-and-forth where Mr Kashef stated he had no more money, Mr Akil directed the customer back to the chair. He then proceeded to shave a 10cm by 5cm section of hair from the top of Mr Kashef's head.
Legal Proceedings and Withdrawn Charge
Mr Kashef reported the matter to police, who charged Mr Akil with common assault on December 3. The case was listed for a hearing at Sutherland Local Court.
However, the dispute concluded on Friday when police agreed to withdraw the charge. The court was informed that Mr Kashef had not appeared to give evidence and was overseas. Police had prepared evidence, including a photograph of Mr Kashef's head showing the shaved patch.
Mr Akil's lawyer, Ahmed Dib, argued the case was weak with insufficient evidence to prove an assault. Magistrate Tania Johnson oversaw the proceedings.
Barber's Relief and Industry Reality
Speaking to the Daily Mail, Ali Akil expressed relief at the outcome. 'I'm feeling good I got some justice out of it. It was so draining,' he said. He described the stress and expense of defending himself and his disappointment that the matter reached court.
Mr Akil, who said he is just a young man trying to earn a living doing what he loves, highlighted a common frustration in service industries. 'This happens more often than you think... If you do a service it's about getting paid. You just want to make people look good,' he stated.
The case underscores the unexpected and severe consequences that can stem from a simple disagreement over payment for services rendered.
