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 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

The reporting has made them appear ill judged especially since, if the judge's latest comments are to be believed, he said the victim was not "particularly vulnerable" and not, as reported, that she was not vulnerable at all. But, as the sentencing guidelines stand, he was quite correct. There are factors which, according to the Sentencing Council, make a victim "particularly vulnerable". Those factors did not apply in this case. Therefore she was vulnerable but not "particularly vulnerable".

prh when something is wrong, that a vulnerable woman is just not deemed venerable enough, to keep repeating 'but it's the law' sort of adds insult to injury!

We know this is all legal speak. We get it. But it's unhelpful, and sends the wrong message. By all means look out for especially vulnerable people.

But don't let anyone assume being well educated can protect a woman from male aggression, especially if the male in question think he has the right to hurt the woman!

It does send the wrong message and it was horrific in terms of reading the words the judge said. But judges are bound by the law and sentencing guidelines. The judge was only giving his judgement within the guidelines the law lays down.

The criminal in question has only been sent to prison due to his job offer being proven to be false - he hasn't been sent to prison due to the lie (he's claiming it was a misunderstanding) but due to that reasonable prospect of rehabilitation being proven to be false. This to me is the major issue in this rather than the judge's comments - that violence against women in itself isn't enough to merit a custodial sentence.

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with explaining the basis of the original decision, given that it has been repeatedly misrepresented in reports of it. It seems to me that some people would find an excuse to condemn him whatever he did - if he hadn't mentioned it they would have been coming on here to moan how arrogant he was for not bothering to clarify his reasoning.

that a vulnerable woman is just not deemed venerable enough, to keep repeating 'but it's the law' sort of adds insult to injury

I fully understand what you are saying. For me the fundamental question is whether we think some women are more vulnerable than others and, if so, whether that should affect sentencing. I can understand a point of view that says all victims of DV should be treated as equally vulnerable but equally I can understand those who think that women who are trapped in a violent marriage deserve additional protection. If we take the latter view, which the law currently does, judges have to decide on the vulnerability of individual victims. That does not mean we are saying the less vulnerable don't deserve protection, just that the more vulnerable deserve more protection.

Personally I tend towards the view that some women are trapped and deserve additional protection but my views on this are not strong. I would not be unhappy if we, as a society, decided that all victims of DV should get equal protection.

I don't think anyone can know about individual vunlerability and it's unfair we include it. I've always thought if a spouse or child of mine were killed the police would think I did it because I won't be crying, I won't go to pieces. In fact my ex husband (in a very mild way) a few times was violent. No one would belive that in a mnoth of sundays of course as I'm a strong leader, a lawyer, the person who'd save you all on a boat that was sinking because I'd organise everything.

It sounds like the judge here did follow the law but the law itself is wrong in that case in my view. I can see a case that if you beat up a small baby that might be worse than beating up a 6 foot rugby player but even there it's still violence and just because one could have fought back better than the other doesn't change the fact someone was beaten up.

The defendant was described as parkistani (not p heritage). I wonder if he was originally a immigrant groom? Hence all that stuff about ,how well supported she was and how educated, and nothing about his social and educational background. If it was ok to assess the crime by victim, how is the defendants background not worthy of comment by the judge in the same way?

If it was ok to assess the crime by victim, how is the defendants background not worthy of comment by the judge in the same way

I certainly do not think that whether or not he was an immigrant groom should affect the sentence. And if it doesn't affect the sentence there is no reason for the judge to mention it. Indeed, there is good reason not to in that mentioning it may give the appearance that it is part of sentencing.

More generally, sentencing is (quite rightly in my view) far more interested in the victim and how they are affected by the offence than the offender. However, the offender does come into it a little when looking at aggravating and mitigating factors. As there is a long list of such factors (30 in the current guidelines) the judge will normally only mention those factors that affect the sentence.

I don't think anyone can know about individual vunlerability and it's unfair we include it.

The sentencing guidelines don't expect judges to look at vulnerability in other than broad-brush terms. That was essentially the issue here - they are supposed to take it into account if the victim comes into a category that makes her particularly vulnerable, e.g an elderly or disabled person.

prh if the law wishes to punish those who abuse vulnerable women more than others, so be it.

my issue is that law appears to not want to punish men who hurt and abuse their wives/partners. The vulnerable issue is a fucking red herring. He hurt and abused his wife, he admitted it, he should be punished, with jail.

If his wife was additionally vulnerable by all means add some extra time on. But don't let the bastard off because of some cock-eyed view about what a judge thinks women should do in certain situations.

This wife was not offered protection. Her attacker was set free, initially. How is that protection?

The vulnerablty issue is just another stick to beat women with. It does not need to be if you start with the premise all women should be free of physical/emotional/financial and sexual abuse - just as we do with men!

Then if we perceive additional vulnerability the perpetrator can get increased sentence.

He hurt and abused his wife, he admitted it, he should be punished, with jail

I agree.

As I have said previously, the sentence was not suspended due to any considerations about the victim's vulnerability. That was a red herring. It was suspended due to the alleged offer from Leicestershire. Although I can understand why the judge suspended the sentence, given current sentencing practice, I do not agree that this is a good enough reason to suspend sentence in this case.

But don't let the bastard off because of some cock-eyed view about what a judge thinks women should do in certain situations

Just to repeat, the judge's view on the victim's vulnerability did not affect the sentence at all. It is one of three factors that, under the sentencing guidelines, can move the offence into the most serious category of harm. If any one of these is present the offence goes into the top category. In terms of the actual sentence, however, it makes no difference if 1, 2 or 3 of the factors are present.

It does not need to be if you start with the premise all women should be free of physical/emotional/financial and sexual abuse - just as we do with men

We do. And suggesting that the courts treat men differently is true only in as much as someone attacking a woman is likely to get a higher sentence than someone attacking a man.

So you think of he had done that to a random man he would have got off, no jail?

Do you think your average wife-beater Mumsnet picking over the details of the case to see how the law works?

I guess they are

I think they heard what he did and what the law did, and what the judge said. And thought ah that is how much the law cares about men attacking their wives!

Wife-beater is onMumsnet......

I guess they are not.

Sorry stupid phone!

So you think of he had done that to a random man he would have got off, no jail?

Yes.

If he had done it to a random man the details would have been different as it would not have been domestic abuse. He would probably have got around 6 months suspended and might have got away with a community order.

If it had been DV and the victim had been a man I would expect the sentence to be the same (or at least very similar) to the one he actually got assuming all other facts were the same. A different judge may not have suspended the sentence on the basis of the alleged offer from Leicestershire (and I personally think this judge was wrong to do so) but that would be nothing to do with the sex of the victim. Many judges would not have suspended the sentence in this case.

So just to be clear... If a colleague of mine suddenly decided to go crazy brought a cricket bat into work, bashed me with it and forced me to drink bleach; I could expect him or her not to receive a jail sentence?

Well Italian, clearly it depends on whether your colleague might have a chance at a sporting contract or not.

If he does, then fuck you, his future sporting career is far more important than your horrific experiences. Get ye back into the kitchen and stop whining on about justice. If he's even just likely to become a good sportsman your wellbeing and indeed, life, means nothing.

(That's a fair representation of what's happened here, incredibly. It's awful).

MiscellaneousAssortment I thought you were going to say, that depends of you are romantically involved or not! Because if you are you are expected to put up with any old shit!

If a colleague of mine suddenly decided to go crazy brought a cricket bat into work, bashed me with it and forced me to drink bleach; I could expect him or her not to receive a jail sentence

If it was prosecuted as ABH, you received a similar level of injuries to the woman in this case (bruising only - it appears she spat out the bleach without it causing any damage), the attack was not sustained or repeated (this victim was attacked repeatedly), your colleague had no previous convictions and pleaded guilty then you could expect that he or she would receive a suspended sentence of around 6 months. The use of a weapon would make it a category 2 offence but the factors needed to push it into category 1 would not be present so an immediate custodial sentence would be highly unlikely for a first conviction.

Note that this case was category 1 ABH and, in my view, the sentence should not have been suspended. I understand why the judge did it given current practice in the courts but I do not agree with the decision.

I certainly feel a lot less safe with all this knowledge now.

Ah yes, Italian of course that true too! Kinda a main point really!

I just don't get why many people seem to think it's resolved ok now the sentence has been made harsher, but the only reason is the lying/ absence of the job, which seems to have influenced the sentence this man got far more than the piddling little detail of a women's abuse and suffering.

which seems to have influenced the sentence this man got far more than the piddling little detail of a women's abuse and suffering

No, it hasn't. It appears to have been the main factor in determining that the sentence should be suspended. The length of sentence (which was always 18 months) was set taking account of the victim's suffering.

I certainly feel a lot less safe with all this knowledge now.

I can understand that. The only thing I can say is that attacks in ABH cases can sound or even look horrific but they generally leave the victim with nothing more than minor injuries such as bruising. If you were attacked with a bat and the attacker left you with fractures or other serious injuries that should be prosecuted as GBH, in which case even a first offender pleading not guilty would almost certainly face an immediate prison sentence.

Well forced to drink bleach and swallow tablets may not leave many marks, except death of course, had her husband succeeded, but I don't think those incidents could possibly be described as sounding worse than they actually are :(

By the way, I think the difference between a suspended sentence and a jail sentence is massive, worlds apart! Even if the law appears to think they're much of a much ness.

A suspended sentence is nothing, a slap on the wrists and a 'keep your nose clean for 18 months'. They get to enjoy life just as before, they can hide their criminal acts if they want to, simultaneously with carrying out the punishment itself. If only victims could do the same.

It's nothing, absolutely nothing like being in prison and having to live the consequences of their actions, actually live them each day, no way to forget about what you did or how society perceives you. Having your freedom taken away is a definite change in circumstances.

Having to live apart from society sends a clear message about the acceptability of someone's actions.

Letting someone just carry on pretty much as normal (except in doing activities requiring a dbs check) sends an equally clear message about how much society cares about their actions. And how much society values their victims too.