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?

Jess Phillips MP is leading a campaign to put pressure on the Attorney General to review the sentence handed down by the judge. I've tweeted my MP to ask them to support that effort. Maybe others can do the same?
It's scary and shocking that in the 21st century women's rights in this country are being run over roughshod in this way. Especially just days after a man is jailed for life for killing his ex girlfriend, whose please for help were repeatedly ignored by police. It feels like there is a new wave of misogyny happening all around us.

*pleas

There was an edition of Dispatches several years ago where a woman was in a DV situation.

Her father pressured and bullied her into staying with him.

Her husband set light to her in the garden. The programme said that because of her injuries she would spend the rest of her life in a nursing home.

Her father was filmed wailing about how much he loved his daughter...........loved her? What an absolute crock of shit.

Its about time the PARENTS in these cases started to be prosecuted because they ARE breaking the coercive control laws.

Its an uncomfortable truth that needs to be faced and dealt with.

GBH usually requires really serious harm so I can see why hitting her might be ABH. However, I do think the bleach incident was attempted GBH, he indicated he wanted her dead, he seems to have intended she suffered really serious harm.

Perhaps a new offence should be created to deal with domestic violence. Most victims undergo numerous attacks and the intent to continually coerce and control coupled with the special vulnerability of the victims is not really covered by the existing offences . It's not like getting involved with a pub fight, although that can be bad enough. Not sure why this wasn't done when the new coercive control legislation
was brought in.

It's scary and shocking that in the 21st century women's rights in this country are being run over roughshod in this way. Especially just days after a man is jailed for life for killing his ex girlfriend, whose please for help were repeatedly ignored by police. It feels like there is a new wave of misogyny happening all around us.

Yes. But calm down ladies. Nothing to see here.

Chaz "GBH usually requires really serious harm so I can see why hitting her might be ABH"

I would have hoped use of a cricket bat would make it gbh. Poster up thread who said there's a charging problem is right.

Perhaps a new offence should be created to deal with domestic violence. Most victims undergo numerous attacks and the intent to continually coerce and control coupled with the special vulnerability of the victims is not really covered by the existing offences . It's not like getting involved with a pub fight, although that can be bad enough. Not sure why this wasn't done when the new coercive control legislation was brought in.

YES!!
Or stick with the current offences, but make it subject to a different sentencing regime where there are multiple counts, to uplift the available sentence.

YY. Either of those options.

It really is unbelievable. Domestic violence is something which affects women of all ages, ethnicities, religions, social class, educational levels, those with friends and without.

I don't think being intelligent, educated or have friends means you cannot be deemed vulnerable. Vulnerability is not set in stone either- the degree of vulnerability changes. Nor does it mean you cannot be a victim of DV.

I don't know the ins and outs of the case, but on face value I think the judge has got it very wrong. His comments were shocking.

This sentence is fucking unbelievable. The law of the land is the law of man, not women. If a random man had done this to another random man, I expect things would have been quite different.

Here's the petition www.change.org/p/cpsuk-take-domestic-violence-seriously-in-courts if anyone wants to sign it.

I really think Mumsnet needs to take up this issue.

Woman cannot be expect to live in a society that thinks so fucking little of them. That bastard should have been charged with attempted murder.

The law has been used in some very wicked ways, in South Africa to deny black people rights, around the world in many places even to this day to deny women their rights. Just because it is the law, the reality is, it should be challenged.

Please Mumsnet get something going!

I think it's also crazy for a suspended sentence to be considered as a custodial sentence

The fact a suspended sentence is regarded as custodial regardless of whether or not the criminal actually goes to prison has consequences for the criminal. It means, for example, that the offence will always appear on any DBS check. But I understand that it seems crazy to many people.

Jess Phillips MP is leading a campaign to put pressure on the Attorney General to review the sentence handed down by the judge

Unfortunately this campaign is doomed to failure. There is nothing the Attorney General can do. ABH sentences cannot be referred to the Court of Appeal for review - my apologies for getting this wrong in one of my earlier posts. However, given that the claim regarding Leicestershire has fallen apart, the judge can review the sentence under the slip rule if that was part of the reason the sentence was suspended. It is also possible that Bashir could now be charged with perverting the course of justice.

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

Yes. ABH can be bruises, bites or scratches. GBH has to be more serious.

On the facts of this case it does sound like at least one of the offences could have been GBH. I don't have any inside information but it could be that a deal was struck whereby he would plead guilty to a lesser offence in return for the more serious charges being dropped. This could have happened if, for example, the victim was very nervous about having to give evidence. That would seem to be the most likely explanation for the fact that he was only charged with ABH. If he had been convicted of GBH he would probably be looking at 3 years in jail.

If a random man had done this to another random man, I expect things would have been quite different

No they wouldn't. It is surprising the sentence is suspended but in all other respects this sentence is a normal one for the offence regardless of the sexes of the offender and victim. And sometimes sentences are suspended in surprising circumstances for male on male ABH and for female on male ABH.

prh47bridge I don't agree.

www.thesun.ie/news/527447/man-who-beat-masturbating-barman-dubbed-pat-mustard-with-baseball-bat-and-broke-his-fingers-is-jailed-for-two-and-a-half-years/

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36526645

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/15116351.Man_jailed_for_seven_years_for_using_baseball_bat_during_mob_attack_on_lone_victim_in_Horden/

I'm not a medical person but I reckon you can die from being forced to drink bleak and from being beaten with a cricket bat or a baseball bat. I'd treat the whole lot of these crimes as attempted murder.

www.thoughtco.com/is-it-safe-to-drink-bleach-606151

Sorry Freudian slip, Bleach not Bleak... but all of this is fucking bleak.

It's the judges comment about her vulnerability which was unacceptable, and shows how little some judges know about DV and how out of touch they are. Her education and intelligence has nothing to do with it, she is still a victim of abuse, whether she has a degree or not and is still vulnerable. It's like my friends intellugence was used by the judge as a stick to beat her with. There is still a lot of mysogeny in the court system.

It just seems ridiculous to me that the status of the victim is determinative of the sentence.

Surely the offence is the offence irrespective of whether the victim had a few mates or not? The suggestion seems to be that because she didn't leave (but could have done) she asked for it.

I suspect that the judge has been lenient for racial/cultural reasons.

I wonder if the judge has been lenient because some men see women as the property of a man. I think that us it really, he thinks on some level she belongs to this area wipe and also thinks she colluded in her own abuse by being well educated!

Arse wipe, obviously!

prh47bridge

I am really valuing your input and knowledge to this thread - thank you.

If there was a plea bargain for ABH - do you think that was because they were unsure the evidence was going to stack up against him as it was only him and her? It also sounds like from the articles, she didn't report it at the time, but at a time afterwards - which whilst I think is totally acceptable, it would mean it was harder to have evidence etc. wouldn't it?

signed and shared.

ItalianGreyhound - I don't see the relevance of a case in the Republic of Ireland. The law is different there. The other two cases were convictions for GBH with intent, and in one case the accused had previous convictions, so of course the sentencing is much more severe than that in an ABH case. If the defendant in this case had been convicted of GBH or GBH with intent he would have received a much higher sentence - probably 3 years for GBH or 12 years for GBH with intent.

Aeroflotgirl - All the reports concerning the judge's comments originate from a single reporter. There is no way of knowing for sure but I would not be surprised if the judge actually said the victim was not "particularly vulnerable" and the reporter failed to note the word "particularly". On the sentencing guidelines as they currently stand the victim was not "particularly vulnerable", although she was clearly vulnerable. If the report is correct and the judge did just say she was not vulnerable I agree with you.

PandaPolar - There are two main reasons the CPS would accept a plea bargain in a case like this.

Firstly, as you say, it could be that they are concerned that the evidence may not be strong enough to secure a conviction. As he has pleaded guilty he has accepted all the allegations. If he had pleaded not guilty the prosecution would have had to prove them beyond reasonable doubt. If they think they have only got, say, a 55% or 60% chance of getting a conviction a plea bargain may be attractive. A bargain has positives and negatives for both sides. From the prosecution's point of view they have avoided the risk of the defendant being acquitted and have ensured he gets a criminal record, but the record is for a lesser crime than the one he actually committed. From the defendant's point of view he has a lower sentence than he would have received had he been convicted of the more serious offence, but he has given up the chance to defend himself with the possibility of getting a not guilty verdict. Both sides have opted for certainty over the uncertainty of a contested trial.

The other possible reason for accepting a plea bargain is if the victim is seriously unhappy about the prospect of giving evidence in the trial. I don't blame any DV victim who feels that way. In that situation, if the defendant offers to plead guilty to a lesser offence, the victim may be happy for the prosecution to accept the offer so that she does not have to give evidence.

I'd treat the whole lot of these crimes as attempted murder

I'm not convinced an attempted murder charge would have stuck. The prosecution has to prove not only that the accused's actions could have led to the victim's death but that they intended to kill the victim. But yes, from the description given it sounds like he could have faced a more serious charge - GBH or possibly GBH with intent. However, he was charged with ABH so he has to be sentenced accordingly. The judge is not permitted to sentence someone for attempted murder when they have been convicted of ABH even if the judge thinks the offence should have been classed as attempted murder.

The petition mainly attacks the judge, not those who were responsible for charging or legislation. Might be better to direct energy as calling for work to be done on how best to deal with domestic violence in the courts generally. You need to get the whole system right not just have a judicial scape goat if anything is going to change for the better.