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?

Have read with interest the Secret Barrister piece. That "slip" rule under which the judge has eight weeks to recall him and unsuspend or change the sentence is very interesting indeed.

Hedgehog "I don't fucking care what the judge was allowed to do"

um, we should really care, because the sentencing guidelines etc are exactly what should be changed here. The judge said some phenomenally stupid things but what he did was within the guidelines - hence my argument that the guidelines - and actually a hell of a lot about sentencing - needs to change.

Also, the judge doesn't have the power to operate outside the law. He should have imposed the maximum sentence here but you seem to be arguing he should have imposed more? I think these violent acts, whether they are first offences or not, should have much much longer sentences imposed.

I also think it would be fair for both the the bleach and cricket bat incidents to be called attempted murder - I don't know the details of the pills incident. Law relating to violent crime needs a massive overhaul. Meanwhile we had a helicopter here tracking people watching TV illegally. Not sure who pays for that.....

The judge said some phenomenally stupid things but what he did was within the guidelines - hence my argument that the guidelines - and actually a hell of a lot about sentencing - needs to change.

Yes. No argument there. They should also be required to consider DV myths.

This is why I think we should encourage MN to campaign for this lady.

This lady stood up and the legal system failed her. The legal system needs to change to remove this myth that an education protects you from domestic violence. It doesn't protect you from any sort of violence, which is evident in other areas of law.

Also, on that vein, I wonder if the legal system assumes that a man with a degree is smart enough not to pour bleach down his OH's throat?

It is a completely sexist and outdated guideline that needs to be updated.

Thinking more about the issue of guidelines I still think the judge was wrong. As far as I can see the guidelines allow for a judge to impose a more stringent sentence when the victim is vulnerable. Now I think there are two problems - one that the judge misinterpreted this to mean "not vulnerable = non-custodial sentence for perpetrator" and two, arguably all women who suffer from DV are vulnerable - they have been rendered so by the psychological terrorism that is inherent in DV. I think the first of these points means that even within the current sentencing guidelines the judge was wrong.

But I'm always cautious about minimum custodial sentences with no room for latitude. What, for instance, should a judge be allowed to do in the case of, say, a woman who after a lifetime of being on the receiving end of DV, snaps and hits her husband back - he then calls the police saying "look at these bruises?" The background comes out in the trial, but there is no leniency allowed, a minimum tarrif has been set and must be adhered to.

That's why I think ultimately the issue is educating the judiciary properly about DV and sexual violence, and having ( as I think we already do have) the option for sentences to be reviewed if they are unduly lenient.

I still think the main cock up was the judge's. (And I still hold that anyone who thinks the underlying purpose of the possible leniency in sentencing is to allow someone who beat his wife with a cricket bat and poured bleach down her throat to walk free after being found guilty is a cunt - as is the judge in this case).

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

Er, no. They are pointing out that the judge's hands are tied. He did not need to suspend the sentence but, given that the accused was only convicted of ABH, the judge could not have passed a sentence of, say, 10 years in prison even if he felt it was fully justified. If he had passed such a sentence it would have been overturned on appeal.

He said she wasn't vulnerable at all

According to reports. We haven't got his written judgement. I have said that if the reports are correct he was wrong. However, if he said she was not particularly vulnerable and a journalist has removed the word "particularly" he was correct as the law stands.

rape myths were responsible for the Ched Evans acquittal

So you were in the jury room and know what was discussed? You may be right but, unless the jurors tell us the reasoning for the acquittal, there is no way of knowing. The judge will have cautioned them against rape myths - that is part of the standard summing up in rape trials.

Fuck writing letters, it's time to be storming courts in numbers when this kind of horrific shit cracks off.

As far as I can see the guidelines allow for a judge to impose a more stringent sentence when the victim is vulnerable

The guidelines require the judge to place the offence into one of three categories. If the victim is particularly vulnerable it will go into category 1 or 2. In this case the judge put the offence in category 1 - the most serious category of ABH. The fact that he did not think the victim was "particularly vulnerable" made no difference to the actual sentence.

The press have said that "not vulnerable = suspended sentence" (not non-custodial - a suspended sentence is still classed as a custodial sentence). If that was the judges reasoning he was clearly wrong within the current guidelines. However, based on his reported remarks it does not appear that this was his reasoning. The sentence was suspended for other reasons.

arguably all women who suffer from DV are vulnerable

Indeed. However, the sentencing guidelines require the judge to determine whether the victim was "particularly vulnerable" and give guidance as to how that is to be determined in cases of DV. Under the guidelines, whilst all DV victims are vulnerable, most are not "particularly vulnerable".

The judge said some phenomenally stupid things but what he did was within the guidelines - hence my argument that the guidelines - and actually a hell of a lot about sentencing - needs to change.

YY.

That said, wrt vulnerability, although there's an argument that all DV victims are vulnerable, I think most of us would want sentencing guidelines to reflect that some are especially vulnerable. As someone said upthread, that it would be particularly egregious to do this to someone who was in a wheelchair, or heavily pregnant, or just recovering from surgery. And if that's the case, judges are going to need to go through the test/s, and be clear that they have done so.

I think the issues here are more that the possible sentencing options aren't strict enough in the first place, the LCC thing is bollocks, the double punishment is a controversial point anyway, and the decision to only go for ABH is an unsatisfactory one. Only one of these four things was actually within the judge's control. We do certainly need better education on DV for the judiciary, but I am not sure that would've helped here.

I think it's also crazy for a suspended sentence to be considered as a custodial sentence. Are there any organisations calling for reform and review of sentencing generally?

although there's an argument that all DV victims are vulnerable, I think most of us would want sentencing guidelines to reflect that some are especially vulnerable.

He could have just said that she didn't meet the criteria for being considered especially "vulnerable". He didn't need to prop up DV myths which verge on victim blaming by making an argument involving her degree. I had A levels (the first time) and later (second time) a degree and jobs. My DV experiences nearly broke me.

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

Pretty ridiculous statement, to be honest. The judge has to operate within the guidelines. If we work on the basis that every judge is completely free to sentence in accordance with his perception of what the general public might think is morally right, that is the direct route to chaos and serious injustice.

And, more pragmatically, if the judge in this case had just decided to throw the guidance out of the window and sentence this man to something way beyond what is permitted, the only result would have been an immediate and cast-iron appeal and bail pending the hearing of that appeal.

I care very much. I think it's really important we can identify what's due to limitations of the law and what's due to a need for better DV education amongst the judiciary. Can't design a solution without knowing what the problem is.

The prime minister said it was a key personal priority to transform the way the UK thought about tackling domestic violence, as she called for ideas about how the treatment of victims can be improved and more convictions secured against abusers.

I actually think it is really important we do write to TM and get her to know we are not happy with this, particularly with regard to the above quote from a recent article. It would be a waste to miss an opportunity where we could create real change, and perhaps be listened to in an area subject that our voices are rarely (in my experience) heard.

And, more pragmatically, if the judge in this case had just decided to throw the guidance out of the window and sentence this man to something way beyond what is permitted

In no alternative universe were his hands tied so much that he had to suspend the fucking sentence.

The main issue for me was the original charging decision by the CPS. He was charged and convicted of ABH so that is all he can be sentenced for.
If we want a campaign then it's to have DV seen as a more serious crime. Is trying to force bleach down someone's throats really only ABH?

Is trying to force bleach down someone's throats really only ABH?

What is the difference between ABH AND GBH - is it the injuries?

GBH has been charged for chemical burns before, surely the bleach could have done similar had she not spat it out?

Shouldn't the psychological terror and trauma of having someone force bleach into your mouth count for something?

venus its horrific I found out several years ago that one of my ancestors killed herself by this method. Because she knew it would kill her

And this man must have known it would have a chance of killing his wife.

There is also an inferrence here in this case that if DV happens to a woman lower down the socio economic scale it must be because she is thick.

There is also an inferrence here in this case that if DV happens to a woman lower down the socio economic scale it must be because she is thick.

Yes.

Outrageous.

What a low-life.

Why isn't it attempted murder??

Sorry if this has already appeared upthread, but have you all signed this:

online petition

She was caught between her husbands misogyny coercive control and violence and her parents misogyny and coercive control.

Why arent her parents being prosecuted for coercive control Its supposed to be against the law now isnt it?

They are culpable too surely.

The judge should be disbarred. I can't believe that anyone could say that a woman who was beaten with a baseball bat and had bleach poured down her throat wasn't vulnerable and that a man who did that shouldn't be in prison. There is no justice there. This says a lot about the judges sick mentality and also shows they have too much leeway.