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?

"But... why didn't she just leave?"

It's profoundly ignorant and it needs tackling.

I understand your point of view. The counter argument is that the current situation came about because of pressure (largely from women's groups) arguing that women who were unable to leave an abusive relationship for financial, cultural, religious or similar reasons should receive greater protection. The courts have responded to this pressure by regarding such women as particularly vulnerable and giving higher sentences to those who commit DV in such situations.

You are arguing that this is victim blaming and that pressure groups were wrong about women staying in violent relationships for financial reasons (I should note that many women who remain in abusive relationships say they are unable to leave for financial reasons, particularly women who have no independent income).

The courts are in a no-win situation here. Either they respond to those women's groups who believe that some women are trapped in abusive relationships and their abusers should receive longer sentences, or they listen to people like you who apparently believe that the sentence should be the same regardless.

I am saying that I think the psychological aspect of DV should be better recognised. I am a DV survivor myself. Please don't make assumptions about what I do or don't want.

This judge gave a suspended sentence to someone who forced his wife to drink bleach and hit her with a cricket bat and yet you are falling over yourself to make excuses and assumptions about his actions. So is the sneering, patronising and dismissive Secret Barrister.

Here's a novel idea, perhaps he's just ignorant?

prh47bridge The fact he will serve no jail time (as I right that is what suspended means?) sends a clear message to me, am I alone in thinking this is not a real punishment?

How about something like this:

• the CPS charge him with, say, attempted murder

• his lawyers inform the CPS that he will plead not guilty to that and will fight the charge but ask, without prejudice, if the CPS will be willing to accept a plea of guilty to GBH

• the CPS assess the evidence and conclude that there is a real likelihood that they will lose a contested attenpted murder charge case so agree to accept his plea of guilty to GBH.

?? OK?

prh47bridge "You really have no way of knowing that." No I do not know it. I am guessing. But I think I am right!

"The victim would have been advised of any possible plea bargain and would have been asked for her views." A victim of any kind of violent crime may well not be in the best possible place to decide the views on their own case. Especially if they are married to the violent person who abused them.

I've no idea what she said, I thin society should support her. The law should support her. I think the law failed her.

"You may find it surprising (or even disappointing) how many victims of DV are happy for their attacker to plead guilty to a lesser offence so that they don't have to give evidence." why would I be surprised if cowed scared women wold take any route to avoid confrontation with a known attacker.

"The laws do protect everyone regardless of how vulnerable other people think they are. " Do you think this woman feels protected. Her attacker is free. Do you think she is protected?

"However, most people seem to agree that the more vulnerable the victim, the higher the sentence should be. You seem to be arguing for one size fits all sentencing."

I do not think I am arguing for a one size fits all.But for me this result is a one size fits none.

I personally think the vulnerability thing is a smokescreen.

"We are agreed that all victims are vulnerable. But how would you distinguish highly vulnerable victims from less vulnerable victims?"

I am not sure I need to for the purposes here. It's not my job to write or re-write the guidelines, maybe it is just the 'job' of me and all the other disgruntled people here to point out where these 'guidelines' have failed. Do yu feel they have failed or do you think this is justice?

"those who are trapped in a marriage they cannot escape should be punished more severely than DV against others." By your very language you are implying that women who are not diabled or pregnant or old or whatever shoudl be totally able to get out of such a marriage! Which implies if they do not then they are choosing to stay and accept this 'treatement'.

Can a pregnant, old or disabled woman leave a marriage, yes, can all, no, not all.

Can you not see that this is setting up a lot of hurdles women are expected to clear if they are to be taken seriously?

"The problem with focussing on single cases like this, especially when we don't know all the facts, is that it can result in rash changes to the law which do not have the desired effect." I would not want tha. It must be painfully clear I am not a lawyer. but laws which effect women in this way should not be made soley by men who have no idea or expereince or (it seems) inclination to understand what might keep a woman in an abusive relationship despite being, otherwise, bright!

If he really did say "I want you to kill yourself" hen it is a case of attempted murder and whoever did not prosecute on this has failed her?

"For what it is worth... guidelines provides a way for some women to be classed as particularly vulnerable in a way that is generally not available to men"

What is it worth?

I think it is worth very little really since one of the categories is being pregnant, which men cannot do!

prh47bridge Thanks for your thoughts.

Having read about the 'particularly vulnerable' categories, I think almost all women are particularly vulnerable to almost all men, and that sentencing should reflect that.

I can't think of an example of a woman who is the victim of a crime committed by a man, where she would not find it incredibly difficult to protect herself. She is likely to be significantly weaker, smaller, less financially secure, have children, have a cultural tendency to defer to authority... and on and on.

Generalising of course, but still...

This has probably been shared already but petition link here

www.change.org/p/cpsuk-take-domestic-violence-seriously-in-courts

pickleme, you have an incredibly depressing view of women. Plenty of women are stronger than plenty of men, both mentally and physically. If we start going down the route that women are automatically entitled to special protection because they are such weak little things, ultimately it is women who will suffer for it.

I hated writing it Megatherium, but when I mentally reflect on women who have been victims of crimes carried out by men, they are all physically weaker and often have other disadvantages etc. If I was physically stronger than my rapist, and trained less well in being polite and people pleasing, then he wouldn't have been able to do it.

www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

picklemepopcorn I completely agree! "I can't think of an example of a woman who is the victim of a crime committed by a man, where she would not find it incredibly difficult to protect herself. She is likely to be significantly weaker, smaller, less financially secure, have children, have a cultural tendency to defer to authority... and on and on."

In addition women know that if a man, especially a partner or former partner says "Shut up, do as I say, don't tell anyone etc, or I will kill you." That there is a massive precedence that this has happened in many situations.

Now, as well as all the other shit women go through they have further evidence to help them to know that if they report a serious crime by a partner, even if he pleads guilty, he may not go to jail!

Megatherium "pickleme, you have an incredibly depressing view of women." No, I think the poster has a realistic view of the incredibly marginalised situation that many women find themselves in!

"Plenty of women are stronger than plenty of men, both mentally and physically."

What has mentally got to do with this here. Do you mean mentally to know that their partner beating them up is wrong? Or do you mean mentally to be able to walk away, with kids, perhaps to an uncertain future?

"If we start going down the route that women are automatically entitled to special protection because they are such weak little things, ultimately it is women who will suffer for it." I really cannot work out why you would say that. We are talking about women being entitled to protection under law from men who are attaching them! We are not talking about women being given the entitlement to do anything 'unfair'.

How is being protected by law from someone physically stronger than you who is attempting to beat or hurt you going to be detrimental to women?

Genuine question - How do you know these women are stronger than these men?

Because I seriously doubt you know tons of women who are stronger than tons of men, unless you know a lot of elite fit sports women/police men/female soldiers and a lot of very physically weak men!

I'm still seething after my DDs case. What the fuck were Police/CPS thinking with the lowly charge and I have no words for the judge. Twat.

Thank you Italian.

That should read police women!

So is the sneering, patronising and dismissive Secret Barrister

Agree with you about the SB. I am legally trained and a former practitioner, but find a lot of the SB's commentary patronising to the extreme- hiding behind anonymity and his/her strict interpretation of the law and being very dismissive of those who have strong emotions about certain aspects of the law. E.g. the Ched Evans piece was very much 'I am right, you are wrong', despite several leading lawyers being deeply uncomfortable about the way the statute was interpreted.

In this case, I am not sure. I think some of it was due to misreporting but I agree with the pp who pointed out that this judge gave a suspended sentence for particularly horrifying instances of abuse, when he did not have to. He could have given a custodial sentence. His remarks about vulnerability were misinterpreted though because he was seeing whether the victim fell within the category of 'particularly vulnerable'.

But on the whole, I find the SB a bit of a knob (although s/he has valid opinions on some issues). All the (often white male) lawyers on twitter seem to love him/her though.

I can't see anything wrong with the Secret Barrister's article. It's carefully based on the law, sentencing guidelines and the reported facts, and he comes to the conclusion both that the judge was lenient and that the defendant is in danger of having the sentence changed on the basis of the lie about the cricket job. Sentencing guidelines are not his fault nor the fault of the judge.

Sounds like too short a sentence to me. I hope she sues him for every penny he has for the personal injury for a start.

Now jailed for 18 months - resentenced as a result of the lie about Leicester Cricket Club

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39529714

He should never have been given leniency because of a supposed job a offer. In which case surgeons and air traffic controllers have carte blanche then?

Only if their crimes are on women original, then yes, a man's professional standing protects them very well.

Glad he hit jail but what the fuck is going on when a possible job offer keeps a violent man out of jail in the first place!!!

Got not hit! Freudian slip maybe!

I'm pleased to see that a custodial sentence has now been imposed but it's disappointing that the judge seems to have used the hearing to explain (i.e. justify) his comments about the victim's vulnerability rather than admit that they were (at best) ill judged.
Also it's crazy that the reason the judge imposed a prison sentence was because of the lie about the cricket club offer.
Can we please renew calls for a Mumsnet campaign???