The law protects the strong by analysing, excusing and minimizing the violence the victim has experienced
I disagree.
The difference between ABH and GBH is the level of injury caused. That affects the level of sentence - the more serious injury leads to the more serious charge. We then look at whether or not a weapon was used, whether or not the assault was repeated, the long term effects on the victim and other factors to determine the sentence. I'm not sure what you want us to do but we know that it is difficult to persuade juries to infer intent unless it is really obvious. They are, however, happy to differentiate on the level of injury.
In this particular case, if the prosecution could have proved the bleach incident and the words used, they may have been able to convict the accused of attempted murder despite the apparent lack of injury. The fact that he was not prosecuted for this suggests that, had they tried, he would have denied it, meaning that it would have been her word against his. In that case it would have been very difficult to get a conviction.
Just to be clear, he did not confess. If it was a plea bargain he agreed to plead guilty to ABH and admit the offences but did not provide a written confession. His admission came after the charges have been put and he had pleaded guilty. The prosecution cannot add further charges at this stage. If we allowed them to do so there would be no incentive for anyone accused of a crime to enter into a plea bargain so a lot more criminals would walk free without being convicted of anything.
The law is set up and run by men and benefits them IMHO
You have said this several times. It simply is not true. However, I'm clearly not going to persuade you since you seem to think that any woman who is involved in the law and does not agree with you is a misogynist, even if the woman concerned is a well known campaigner for women's rights.
But he will be able to pick up, ensnare and abuse other women, if he chooses, presumably.
Sending him to prison would not prevent him from doing that. Any new partner who uses Clare's Law will find out about this conviction even if he had not gone to prison. If he does re-offend the sentence will be worse as he will no longer be a first offender.
What was he told to do
He was ordered to attend a course to help him address his behaviour and pay £1,000 costs.
If there is a fine, who gets the money? The wife? Maybe she would rather he be locked up than be compensated! If the state, what does that make the fine?
It goes to the state and helps to fund the criminal justice system. Compensation for the wife is a separate issue. We don't know what the victim wanted in this case.
I do wonder if we can say categorically across all types of crime people sent to prison are more likely to re-offend
Yes we can.
Can you also tell me if those who work in the law realise how much these kinds of outcomes make ordinary people lose faith in the law
Everyone who works in law is well aware that people lose faith in the law through cases that are misreported, where the law is misunderstood or where the law is wrong. And prosecutors know that entering into a plea bargain can result in people feeling as you do regarding this case. However, their job is to secure convictions where possible. From their point of view, convicting the offender of something is better than him walking away without a conviction at all.
Whatever the courts think about it, they cannot change the law. That is for parliament.