Mustafa Bashir(22 Posts)
I am speechless.
Linking here to The Sun instead of the Daily Mail as the other newspapers haven't reported this yet.
This guy physically and mentally abused his wife. The judge gave him a suspended sentence (so clearly thought he was guilty of something) but said:
”I am not convinced she was a vulnerable person. Sometimes women who moved her from their country become trapped in a relationship where they lose their support network of family and friends and cannot speak the language.
“This is not the case her. She is plainly an intelligent woman with a network of friends and did go on to graduate university with a 2:1 and a masters – although this has had an ongoing affect on her.
“She had difficult trusting people now, especially men.”
He added: ”With regard to the mitigating factors I am not convinced of your remorse for her, but you are sorry for the position you find yourself in over the last two years."
Why would you give a suspended sentence to a man who hit his wife over the head with a cricket bat?
Utterly disgraceful, barbaric behaviour by an evil, misogynist bastard... Disgraceful ruling as well.
I wonder why no one else has responded to this thread? How many pages of outrage and condemnation did the Brock Turner and Ched Evans cases inspire?
So the judge noted he's not sorry for what he did to his wife, only sorry that it's had an impact upon his own life. And still gave him a suspended sentence? That surely can't be allowed to stand?
An absolute idiot who knows nothing about domestic violence.
So, so awful! But I think the CPS was only having him charged with ABH and the victim was not in a vunerable category - disability, SEN etc so the attacker didnot meet the threshold for "custody". Surely he should have been charged with something more serious - what about attempted murder for the bat and bleach incident?
The message is appalling - get an education and your partner can do what they like?? because you are then complicit
Horrifying. Looks like there was coercion and control going on for years too. Wonder why the CPS didn't want to pin more on him - I mean, bleach ffs. I am really curious to know whether or not you would get custody for hitting a random non-vulnerable man with a cricket bat, strangling him and forcing him to drink bleach.
A crown court judge say
So whats the fucking point of the newer coercive control laws then if women are going to come across a fuckwit judge like this.
And pouring bleach down her throat thats attempted murder for Christs sake
Bashir was convicted of ABH according to reports.
Under the sentencing guidelines the judge first has to consider the level of harm. The reported remarks suggest that the injuries caused were not serious in the context of the offence (i.e. this was not close to GBH) and that this particular victim was not "particularly vulnerable" (the phrase used by the sentencing guidelines). There is, however, repeated assault on the same victim, so this falls into the higher level of harm. Note that some of those proclaiming outrage appear to be unaware that judges are required by the sentencing guidelines to separate the "particularly vulnerable" from those who are just vulnerable. If the judge did say, as reported, "I am not convinced she was a vulnerable person" that was wrong. However, if he said, "I am not convinced she was a particularly vulnerable person" that would be in line with the sentencing guidelines.
The judge next has to consider culpability. A weapon has been used so this falls into the higher culpability bracket. This means we are looking at a category 1 offence. It is clear from the sentence passed that the judge placed it in category 1 - the sentence would have been lower if it was category 2 or 3.
For a category 1 offence the sentencing range is 1-3 years custody with a starting point of 18 months. The judge must then look at aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the actual sentence. This appears to be a first conviction so that is a mitigating factor but there are clearly a number of aggravating factors present.
Bashir pleaded guilty so the sentence would be reduced by between 10% and one third depending on how early in the process he first pleaded guilty. The actual sentence was 18 months (NOT 18 years as stated in the Sun) so the judge decided that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. Before the discount for pleading guilty the sentence would have been between 20 months and 27 months.
So the actual sentence (ignoring the fact it is suspended) appears to be fairly normal for this particular offence. It would have been higher if the offence had been GBH.
As the sentence is under 2 years it is open to the judge to suspend it. This appears to have been a first offence which increases the likelihood that it would be suspended. The question is whether the alleged offer from Leicestershire played any part in the judge's decision to suspend. As that claim has fallen apart it is not impossible that the judge could re-open sentencing. If he does not do so it is also possible that the CPS could appeal against the sentence. I doubt an appeal would change the length of the sentence significantly but it may reverse the decision to suspend it.
You may disagree with the sentencing guidelines but the judge has to follow them. The judge can only step outside the guidelines in particularly unusual cases. Sadly, this case does not qualify.
pouring bleach down her throat thats attempted murder for Christs sake
Rightly or wrongly, the CPS clearly did not think the evidence was strong enough to get a conviction for attempted murder. The judge can only sentence Bashir on the basis of the offence for which he has been convicted (ABH). The judge may think that Bashir was lucky not to be charged with attempted murder but he cannot take that into account when sentencing.
So whats the fucking point of the newer coercive control laws then if women are going to come across a fuckwit judge like this
Again, Bashir was not charged with the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. The judge could only sentence him for ABH. As per my earlier post, the only element of sentence that appears in any way questionable is the judge's decision to suspend the sentence rather than send Bashir to prison immediately. You are abusing the judge for following the sentencing guidelines, i.e. doing what he is required to do.
Something on BBC1 news about this now - looking at a review.
Is this a cultural issue. That Mr Bashir comes from a culture that is not part of UK custom.
That a woman must obey her husband or she must expect him to diciplin her?
I get that he was following the sentencing guidelines and that the real problem was that the guy was only charged with ABH. But why on earth was the sentence suspended. I cannot accept that that was a reasonable decision, given the nature of this crime.
I struggle to see any justification for a suspended sentence in this case. It is possible there was something in the pre-sentence reports prepared by the Probation Service that justified this but I really can't imagine what. If it was suspended on the basis of the alleged contract offer from Leicestershire I would disagree with that decision even if there really had been an offer. The only positive is that, if it was on that basis, the judge can now use the slip rule to revisit sentencing - he has 56 days from passing sentence to do that.
The judge is reviewing sentencing on Friday (this week), just announced on Granada Reports. (local TV)
So basically the sentence is no longer suspended. Good.
Ok, can someone please explain to me why someone having a "bright future ahead of him" means that they should escape jail in the first place? It's good he's been jailed, just don't get why the existence/absence of a cricket contract should make a difference.
Agree Barbarian the reasons given for review are complete BS. 'he lied' about the contract. Nothing to do with the severity of the crime. The judge should have just put his hands up and said he misjudged it and a custodial sentence is the only way. 18 months is nothing.
I'm still really fucked off that the impact on this poor woman's was considered minimal because she is 'intelligent'. It's outrageous.
So he is in jail now. Good.However, I feel that they put his lying to the judge as more serious than his abuse towards his partner.
Ok, can someone please explain to me why someone having a "bright future ahead of him" means that they should escape jail in the first place
He claimed to have an offer from Leicestershire CC which would be withdrawn if he went to jail. The reasoning (and I'm not saying I agree - in this case I personally don't think suspending was appropriate) is that, if this had been true, sending him to jail would have been a much worse punishment than, say, jailing a builder's labourer who had committed the same offence. Both would serve time but the builder's labourer would be able to return to his job as if nothing had happened, whereas Bashir would also have lost out on his potential career in cricket.
18 months is nothing
Given that he was convicted of ABH and not a more serious offence, this was his first conviction and he pleaded guilty this was a fairly normal sentence. The judge has clearly placed it in the most serious category of ABH otherwise the sentence would have been significantly lower. As the law stands the judge could maybe have gone 2 or 3 months higher but no more. The sentence would have been much higher if he had been convicted of, say, GBH.
I'm still really fucked off that the impact on this poor woman's was considered minimal because she is 'intelligent'
The comments weren't about the impact on her and the judge did acknowledge that the DV had a lasting effect on her. The judge was commenting on whether or not she was "particularly vulnerable", something he has to determine as it is one of the factors taken into account for sentencing (although in this case it made no difference as the judge placed the crime in the highest category of ABH for other reasons). Reports say that the judge said she was not vulnerable but all reports seem to originate from a single reporter and I haven't seen a transcript of the judge's remarks. If the judge did say she was not vulnerable I condemn that unreservedly. However, if he said she was not "particularly vulnerable" he was operating in line with current guidelines. A woman is only regarded as particularly vulnerable if she is unable to escape the marriage for financial, religious, social or similar reasons. The judge described the circumstances in which a woman might be particularly vulnerable and said (correctly under current guidance) that she did not fall into this category, commenting that she is an intelligent woman with a network of friends.
However, I feel that they put his lying to the judge as more serious than his abuse towards his partner
He has not (yet) been penalised for lying to the judge. He had already been sentenced to 18 months. All that has happened is that the argument that persuaded the judge to suspend the sentence has proved to be false so the sentence is no longer suspended. Bashir may still be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. If convicted he may get a few months added to his sentence.
Thanks prh I think that you're right but if so, the reasoning is bullshit. Very few people can walk straight back into a job after an 18 month absence, especially one caused by being jailed for violence.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.