Former All Black's name suppression for punching a woman in the face has lapsed. It should serve as a warning to other badly behaved sportsmen who try to hide behind their careers

[Dangertime]

"Sportsmen, like the rest of us, need to be responsible for their actions. If it impacts their ability to represent us on the world stage, then so be it. Do we really want those who perpetuate violence against women, against anyone, to represent us"

Sharing as it's good for NZ women that an All Black has been held accountable for violence against women... rugby being somewhat of a national religion for NZ and all
www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/300282963/zac-guildfords-naming-a-line-in-the-sand-for-badly-behaved-sportsmen

I really liked that journalist's piece. Good points being made there.

Thank fuck for those judges who refused him name suppression. Shame on the other judges for putting sport above women.

Unbelievable how many men have been let off previously just because they are high-profile-ish sportsmen! Totally agree that being good at kicking a ball or driving a car should never be a free pass...

This line is interesting - “pleading guilty to a charge of male assaults female” - does anyone know if that is a specific crime in NZ? If so, how does that square with a TWAW stance? Is a TW a male or a female in NZ law?

Good.

There was a similar request from a man who said it would damage his cricket career (which turned out to be a massive exaggeration). Court said no.

When people see men wanting their names suppressed after being convicted of violent crime because it might impact their high profile lucrative career it damages them even more.

I don't know if they try this with all crime or just certain types.

This case- read it, it's shocking.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-name-beat-wife-cricket-bat-manchester-judge-richard-mansell-qc-not-vulnerable-bleach-domestic-violence-leicestershire-county-cricket-club-a7673011.html

'A man who was controversially spared jail after he was found guilty of pouring bleach down his ex-wife's throat and beating her with a cricket bat, has been imprisoned after new evidence came to light.

Judge Richard Mansell QC was criticised after he gave Mustafa Bashir a suspended sentence last month at Manchester Crown Court.

In his summation, he said that Bashir's ex-wife Fakhara Karim was “plainly an intelligent woman” with “a network of friends” and a degree, so he was “not convinced she [was] a vulnerable person”.

Judge Mansell was told at the time that if Bashir was spared custody he would be employed as a professional player by Leicestershire County Cricket Club and was "about to sign the contract" when he was arrested for beating his wife.'

He was jailed after it turned out he had fabricated his offer of a cricket contract. Ie he lied to the court.

The initial verdict- not vulnerable??!!- look what he did to her! And well he's got a good career just coming. Be lenient.

Then oh lied to the court throw the book at him.

Yes there is embedded bias in favour of men. Over and over cases come up that demonstrate it.

That's shocking NiceGerbil. Why would "being about to sign a cricket contract" mean that someone should escape a prison sentence.

It sounds like if it wasn't for the fact that he'd lied about the contract, it would have been accepted as an excuse???

@NiceGerbil

Good.

There was a similar request from a man who said it would damage his cricket career (which turned out to be a massive exaggeration). Court said no.

When people see men wanting their names suppressed after being convicted of violent crime because it might impact their high profile lucrative career it damages them even more.

I don't know if they try this with all crime or just certain types.

I was going to say the same thing.

Here.

www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/dlm329383.html

Well it was accepted by the initial judge as a reason to be lenient.

And that the judge said the victim wasn't vulnerable because she was educated and had friends- he made her drink bleach etc.

So yes if he hadn't lied that would have been that.

And also- the leniency and the judges reasons caused a bit of media attention and I think that's when someone saw his claim and thought hold on that's bollocks.

If the judge had been a bit less lenient and not said what he said in such an outrageous way it probably wouldn't have got media attention and he'd have got away with it.

That's a really interesting law.

Most laws in the UK are gender neutral now except for rape.

"Male assaults female
Male assaults female includes offences under s194 Crimes Act 1961. This is an assault by a male on a female (and is usually used for people in a domestic relationship). A person convicted of Male assaults female can be imprisoned for up to 2 years."

It's a separate offense in NZ. nzfvc.org.nz/district-court-definitions#:~:text=Male%20assaults%20female%20includes%20offences,for%20up%20to%202%20years.