No custody for DV as woman not "vulnerable"

[PandaPolar]

"A Pakistani cricketer who beat his wife with his own bat and forced her to drink bleach while urging her to kill herself is set to join a top British club after being spared jail."

"But Bashir was spared jail at Manchester Crown Court, where the judge decided that he did not pass the custody threshold because his wife was not a vulnerable person."

What the actual fuck?

I am actually speechless.

Surely she became a vulnerable person the moment she was subjected to DV?!

Write to Theresa May, Alison Saunders, head of CPS about the inadequate sentence? Seems to me, even if it hadn't been suspended, 18 months would be inadequate, if the report is correct. Perhaps there should be a Mumsnet campaign.

The club are denying they have anything to do with him.

Lengthy version here -

Leicestershire are saying a contact wasn't offered.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cricketer-who-beat-wife-bat-12802130

It sounds like he lied about the contract to avoid prison. Is that perjury?

Judge richard mansell . Might be an idea to see if this ruling is out of the ordinary in his career.

I bet if it was a man he did this to, the judge would be harsher

Shows even in 2017, women's rights are not as good as the men's

Did you read his defence? He had to work hard to give her money but she did not work. Something something he's not sure how it happened but that made him her with a cricket bat, and force her to drink bleach.
He blames her for not obeying him. And the judge agreed.

How is the judge not under investigation for this case?

I've asked this before in a similarly shocking judges public speech, and apparently there's no recourse to investigate or stop a judge from saying stuff like this.

Judges seem mainly untouchable. Which isn't great

I was told the same - this is the way that "justice' works - we are asking a judge to make a judgement, and unless he has applied the law incorrectly, this cannot be appealed.

So I basically have to accept that, because I have obtained a PhD two decades ago, my ex is allowed to have his hands around my throat, and leave me and our children without a penny.

Sorry to be hijacking, but this story really resonates with me. Some (many?) judges seem to have absolutely no idea of the impact of domestic and emotional abuse on the victims.

I am not a criminal lawyer but I think the term 'vulnerable' comes because it is in the sentencing guidelines as an aggravating factor for sentencing here
so the judge is saying that she doesn't come into the category of being more vulnerable (than other victims of the same crime) for the sentencing guidelines.

Obviously it's an utterly horrifying case and it seems incredibly lenient from the facts in the press but just trying to work out where the comments come in and whether this is the judge, the sentencing guidelines or the offence prosecuted that has caused what seems to be an incredibly low sentence.

I think the context of this comment is important. He is referring to the sentencing guidelines which state that an aggravating factor is whether or not the victim is 'particularly vulnerable'. This would cover things like people with a physical disability, learning difficulties, the elderly, mental health issues or similar. So I think he did interpret it correctly. He has to stick to the guidelines.

I think the issue here is not actually with the judge, and the problem is that he was only charged with assault causing ABH rather than a more serious offence that would have given the judge greater sentencing powers without the aggravating factors. So the police or CPS.

Does being a victim of DV not in itself constitute vulnerability?

Surely anyone that has experienced DV is vulnerable?

Namechanger I am with you (a few years behind you, but I never thought by University education would be brought up in a DV case...). It's an absolute bloody joke.

I assume the prosecution can appeal against the sentence. Given that the judge specifically quoted as a factor in the sentence the fact that he supposedly had employment prospects with Leicestershire Cricket Club and it turns out that that was nonsense, I would have thought there are cast iron grounds for doing so. In fact, I wonder whether this judge can decide to reconsider off his own bat based on the fact that the defendant blatantly lied to the court?

Why is it relevant how 'vulnerable' a woman is beyond the vulnerability she instantly gains from being abused by her partner?

That type of about-face thinking means that some woman are fake game for abusers to prey on. Got an education? Got a friend? Got a job? Then suck it up honey cos no ones going to help you.

I am so angry. On your behalf Namechanger, and the woman that this cricketer abuser wanker hurt, and I guess for me too, in a way.

I am more educated than my stbxh, and he doesn't/didn't have a British passport though had spousal visas when we were together. Does that mean he's more 'vulnerable' than me? And therefore his years of financial, sexual, emotional and physical abuse somehow 'don't count'? Are my lasting injuries not VALID somehow?

If a woman doesn't look like a judges victorian victim ideal, then the law doesn't apply to her or the evil fucker who abused her. It's sick. It sounds like the law doesn't protect women with higher education or social skills. Some reward for trying to make the most of your life huh?

Let's think, do educated men with social skills and jobs face the same inequality? If a man is beaten and raped does he get told that it doesn't matter so much because he's errr, privaledged? No. The opposite happens.

For men, the more educated, employed, socialised and oh, privileged, the more protection they have, and the more life (society) treats them well.

I wonder if that oh so clever and valuable judge has thought about applying the same reasoning to his own sex.

I'd take some joy in seeing him get told by another August Personage that the universal human rights don't apply so strongly in his case because he's such an important and educated man compared to his attacker..

Does being a victim of DV not in itself constitute vulnerability?

No. It's personal characteristics rather than characteristics of the crime. Put it another way, if he'd beaten up a woman in a wheelchair people would complain if that didn't give him power to lengthen the sentence to take it into account. But it also means he can't use that power where it doesn't apply.

^ fair game, not fake

Vulnerability is relevant as an aggravating factor when sentencing. For instance, if the starting point is, say one year' imprisonment, that would be increased if the victim had learning difficulties or was disabled.

This case just doesn't seem right. The wife having an degree should be irrelevant. What he did was wrong and not lawful. We all know that. I think someone influenced someone here.... There should be a full investigation into this because it stinks and it is wrong.

MN campaign?

I left school at 16 with no qualifications . My husband has been charged with assaulting me on several occasions including with a weapon and once whilst I was pregnant , I miscarried two days later . I've had fractures , broken arms and too many black eyes to count - the three times it actually got as far as court he was ordered to pay a fine and attend probation for a few months . It seems that education doesn't really come into it , my local police force have told me more than once that it's pretty rare to be given a custodial sentence for domestic violence . Yet my father who has been an alcoholic my whole life is always in and out of prison for being drunk and disorderly, no violence involved . It's madness .

Cross posted with BillSykesDog and Mega.

That makes a bit more sense with the sentencing criteria being about 'vulnerability'.

However something is not right when this becomes a factor in a domestic violence case of this sort.

Very best wishes to Namechanger2015 and thank you for sharing your story with us so bravely.

I read about this case on an online feminist-lite magazine so the slant was obvious. But still I'm saddened by the result.

Surely the starting point was too low? If the conviction was for ABH then presumably there wasn't enough evidence for GBH?

Fakhara Karim - we believe you.

user, that's awful.

I would agree that tougher sentences across the board are the way forwards.

However getting angry about what the judge said in this case is pointless because he's done nothing wrong and was simply quoting the law as it stands.

People are coming at this the wrong way around. The sentence has not been lowered because she has a degree and is independent, he just hasn't been able to add extra because she doesn't fulfill the criteria of being vulnerable. And judges do need to have that extra available, can you imagine the outcry on here if someone wasn't sentenced to extra if they assaulted someone in a wheelchair for example?

But the issue here is that the sentencing options available for assaults non-vulnerable victims aren't good enough and that the defendant lied about the contract - this judge did not do anything wrong by saying she wasn't in the vulnerable category.