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 do understand the law, thanks. The law is frequently an ass.

It's disgusting, and example of the way abused women are treated by some judges in the family court. Apparently according to my friends judge (she had a degree and is in a profession), due to her intelligence, she shoukd have negotiated herself out of the abusive situation😮😮😮😡😡😡😣😣. Tgere seems to be the thought amongst some judges, that women are meant to be mind readers, and to be able to anticipate and diffuse DV, instead of making tge men responsible for their actions. It seems to happen a lot in courts.

"Vulnerable" is ridiculous in the context of a woman being forced to drink bleach. DV victims are vulnerable because that is generally the nature of DV/DA. It generally involves a lot of psychological abuse to control the victim. I have personal experience of it, and I frequently despair of how ignorant people are.

Again, I think MN need to run a campaign on this. DV is not acceptable and applying a different standard to women who have an education is mind blowing in this day and age.

wow
having read the SB blog, I think that this sentence and the way it's been allowed to occur shows up many many problems. Lack of understanding of DV is one of them but there are many many others.

If someone forced you to drink bleach, you'd be in fear of your life;

MPs Jess Philips and Maria Miller (Con) are writing to the Attorney General about this case. Apparently the offence does not allow for a referral to the Court if Appeal for being too lenient, but the Judge can recall the cas within 56 days if he feels there are doubts - such as the new information about Leicester CCC.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-39416765

The Secret Barrister is biased.
He did not mention the fact that the defendant committed perjury by claiming to have a contact with Leicester City Cricket club.
He ignored the fact that the defendant phoned the victims family to have pressure put on her to obey him. So yes, she fits the criteria of being particularly vulnerable.

The Secret Barrister like the judge and many people, shows their total lack of understanding of DV

The Secret Barrister says that his/her cautious view is that the sentence was lenient. Obviously that isn't enough for you.

Apparently according to my friends judge (she had a degree and is in a profession), due to her intelligence, she shoukd have negotiated herself out of the abusive situation

My judge was alluding to similar - that I had a PhD and was therefore fully aware (and in agreement) of what was being done to me. Literally based on my education. The one page report mentioned my 20-year old PhD four times.

It referred to his 'alleged' domestic abuse once, even though it had been documented with children's school, police, women's aid and ex admitted to it.

What can be done to highlight this injustice?

yes, I was also going to say the fact that her family told her to "obey" him surely puts in her in the vulnerable category listed on the blog?

He did not mention the fact that the defendant committed perjury by claiming to have a contact with Leicester City Cricket club

That was not evidence given under oath so it is not perjury. The fact that the information offered in mitigation was false is mentioned by the Secret Barrister.

He ignored the fact that the defendant phoned the victims family to have pressure put on her to obey him

I have not seen that in any reports. Have you got a link? But even if true it would not have affected sentencing. The judge put the offence in category 1, the most serious category of ABH. Therefore the Secret Barrister is quite right that whether or not the victim was particularly vulnerable did not, contrary to reports, affect the sentence. Note that I accept that whether or not she should have been classified as particularly vulnerable is an important question in general terms even though it made no difference to the outcome of this case.

You can't really win though? I have a mental health condition (and I'm well educated), they wouldn't believe me to give statements due to my mental health condition - which makes me vulnerable - yet, if they look at my education to use as credibility to show that I am well enough to give statements, that makes me not vulnerable...

There's something seriously wrong with the way this is all worked out.

It referred to his 'alleged' domestic abuse once, even though it had been documented with children's school, police, women's aid and ex admitted to it

Unless the abuser is convicted the courts will always refer to it as "alleged". That does not mean they don't believe you.

Meanwhile a woman has been jailed for 8 weeks for blasting out an Ed Sheeran song on a loop and annoying the neighbours. The judge did not seem to think that her three children having to go into care would be 'double punishment'. Such discrepancies in sentencing!

The Secret Barrister says that his/her cautious view is that the sentence was lenient. Obviously that isn't enough for you.

What are you, his fan club? Why did the judge mention the level of "vulnerability" this violently abused women supposedly had and then go on to mention degree etc. Of course it's relevant to the overall judgment. And it is born in pure ignorance.

Meanwhile a woman has been jailed for 8 weeks for blasting out an Ed Sheeran song on a loop and annoying the neighbours

She has had multiple chances. She has repeatedly broken an injunction barring her from creating a nuisance or annoyance. She came before the court a number of times before being jailed.

Why did the judge mention the level of "vulnerability" this violently abused women supposedly had and then go on to mention degree etc

Because it is what the sentencing guidelines say. There is a process the judge must go through in setting sentence. The judge must explain the reasoning behind the sentence. So if the sentencing guidelines mention being "particularly vulnerable" as a factor the judge has to consider this, decide whether or not this particular victim meets the criteria for being particularly vulnerable and say why she was or was not particularly vulnerable in his judgement. If the judge does not do so the accused may be able to use this to appeal against sentence (although that is unlikely in this case).

This is only one of three factors that could put this particular crime into the "greater harm" category and, as at least one of the other two was present, it ended up in category 1 anyway. If the judge had decided the victim was particularly vulnerable the sentence would still have been the same. The sentence does not go up or down depending on how many of the "greater harm" factors are present. It is a binary thing. Either it is "greater harm" or it isn't. In this case it was.

even with the vulnerability thing, it is bizarre - the SB blog says her family told her to obey him and her education is utterly irrelevant.

i understand she doesn't come under some of the categories but she certainly comes under the first cultural one listed in the SB blog?

prh "If the judge had decided the victim was particularly vulnerable the sentence would still have been the same."

this is another thing we need to change about our court system - the victim impact statements are irrelevant as well aren't they? The purpose of judge should not be to pontificate about nothing. So actually his comments about the victim and perceived vulnerability are totally irrelevant - why are they made? Surely in 2017 we need

1. sentence
2. explanation of sentence

Good god, how anybody can seriously defend this sentence is beyond me. I don't give a shiny shit that some blogger on the internet who says they (and in fairness probably does) have a legal background says it was sensible. It is clearly insane. The bloke beat her with a cricket bat and poured bleach down her throat. Her educational level should not be in the slightest bit relevant to the sentencing.

Do judges ever say, when sentencing a bloke who's committed GBH, "Oh well, their victim had a degree, so it clearly wasn't as bad as if they'd had no qualifications and been unemployed at the time." Of course they bloody don't. And anyone who goes through elaborate and baroque machinations to prove some barrack-room lawyer point about "well that's what the sentencing guidelines allow" is being a cunt. I don't fucking care what the judge was allowed to do - what is clear is that he did not do what he should, morally, have done, which is throw the book at the low-life husband who beat and attempted to poison his wife.

And anyone who goes through elaborate and baroque machinations to prove some barrack-room lawyer point about "well that's what the sentencing guidelines allow" is being a cunt

Thank you. And it sends a message. A message that women hear loud and clear. Calm down dear, it's the law. You just don't understand it.

The judge must explain the reasoning behind the sentence. So if the sentencing guidelines mention being "particularly vulnerable" as a factor the judge has to consider this, decide whether or not this particular victim meets the criteria for being particularly vulnerable and say why she was or was not particularly vulnerable in his judgement

He didn't say she wasn't "particularly vulnerable". He said she wasn't vulnerable at all. She was intelligent, she had a degree. And it is a DV myth like rape myths were responsible for the Ched Evans acquittal. And the Secret Barrister didn't acknowledge that, either.

Italic fail - that was prh's comment.

Its disgusting isen't it namechanger, another stick to beat abused women with .

Just because its the law, does not make it right, and the it should be accepted!