Judge criticised for sentence in domestic abuse case

[Caracasus]

18 Months for that? Remember a person who attempted to blind an officer who only got 10 months. I am not familiar with the average term of serious first time offenders, but I would imagine crimes on such scope merits dual digit years.

18 months suspended sentence. That means he does not go to prison but must abide by certain rules laid down by the judge.

[Des-Bal]

Not when it comes at the cost of the victim, I would strongly suggest. As for the supposed misquote, it wasn't a direct quote, it was a supposition drawn from the article and what it suggested was the reasoning - which anyone reading could suss out, one would think. You're getting hung up on minutiae rather than look at the base facts, as offered - which is all you have to go off of as well.

How you're coming across is this - the rights and suffering of the victim come secondary to the potential harm done to the perpetrator by his own actions. Additionally, if the victim is perceived as having less vulnerability than someone of less education, contacts, influence, or other such concepts, their case ought to be considered less serious than someone who lacks in all those categories.

That does not make sense. Would you allow a murderer to walk free if the victim happened to have training in self defense? Would you allow a doctor to dodge a valid and proved malpractice suit because it might damage his reputation or business? Perhaps a child abuser because the kid had lots of friends he could have asked help from?

Still not seeing any potential parallels? If not, then there's no point in attempting to discuss this any further with you, as you are unlikely to grasp the core of my concern, and are more focused on things such as grammar, direct quotes which would more likely be posted as "This is a quote" rather than 'a suggested summary', and taking on an air of insulted superiority because the rest of us are apparently not at your grand level of interpretation and comprehension.

Yes, even then. When a judge doesn't consider what a sentence actually means they're just not doing their job.
It's not minutiae you're responding to arguments that have not been made and confusing the issue. I'm not saying I know more than you I'm saying that none of us know much and the only appropriate response is to chill right the fuck out.

To your hypotheticals, no I wouldn't, and none of that happened here. There's a difference between getting away with something and you being unhappy with the sentence. A better example would be a court moderating it's judgement against a doctor because the sentence that's normally appropriate would result in them losing their ability to practice, that loss must be looked at as part of the penalty. Looking at the sentencing guidelines it seems like the vulnerability of the victim is absolutely something he's required to look at, it's a question he has to answer. Those guidelines also say that a guilty plea warrants a reduction in charges and if "admitting the charge" is a term of art referring to a guilty plea then that was probably more relevant in the sentencing.

[Des-Bal]

18 Months for that? Remember a person who attempted to blind an officer who only got 10 months. I am not familiar with the average term of serious first time offenders, but I would imagine crimes on such scope merits dual digit years.

He was charged with two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, a crime with a sentencing maximum of 3 years.

[Socialist Nordia]

Damn, that's not just domestic abuse, I would charge him with attempted murder. I'm not sure what else to call trying to force someone to drink bleach. That sentence was unacceptable.

[Jamzmania]

British courts handing down light sentences for violent crimes seems to be not uncommon.

[Des-Bal]

He misapplied sentencing guidelines for assault. As has already been mentioned here.

I'm not persuaded he did. The sentencing guideline divides Assault occasioning bodily harm into three categories with the upper two highlighting the importance of great bodily harm and while I'm not disputing her experience was terrible I'm not seeing anything suggesting great bodily harm. According to those guidelines community service would be an understandable sentence.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Yes, even then. When a judge doesn't consider what a sentence actually means they're just not doing their job.
It's not minutiae you're responding to arguments that have not been made and confusing the issue. I'm not saying I know more than you I'm saying that none of us know much and the only appropriate response is to chill right the fuck out.

To your hypotheticals, no I wouldn't, and none of that happened here. There's a difference between getting away with something and you being unhappy with the sentence. A better example would be a court moderating it's judgement against a doctor because the sentence that's normally appropriate would result in them losing their ability to practice, that loss must be looked at as part of the penalty. Looking at the sentencing guidelines it seems like the vulnerability of the victim is absolutely something he's required to look at, it's a question he has to answer. Those guidelines also say that a guilty plea warrants a reduction in charges and if "admitting the charge" is a term of art referring to a guilty plea then that was probably more relevant in the sentencing.

Judge Richard Mansell said his decision on the sentence was guided by the fact he was "not convinced [Bashir's then wife] was a vulnerable person" as she was "an intelligent woman with a network of friends" and a degree.

Because as we all know, if you are smart or have friends, bad things can never happen to you, and if they do, well ... you must have somehow allowed it to happen. That's the unspoken insinuation there.

"He took her into the bathroom where he grabbed a bottle of bleach and he made her drink the bleach so she would kill herself. She spat that out as she was unable to swallow it.

"Then he gave her tablets from the house and told her to take them. She did but again she was unable to swallow them," he said.
Another argument in December 2014 led to Bashir, who played cricket for Oldham, strangling her, hitting her with the bat and saying, "If I hit you with this bat with my full power then you would be dead", the court heard.

At least two attempts at forced suicide, ie murder. A third attempt, being the strangulation - though how having a network of friends or being smart prevents someone from throttling you, I have yet to grasp. And a direct threat of murder.

Obviously she reached out or this wouldn't be a case, though I can't see a reference as to how this all came to light. There was only two years there of a relationship, so this isn't as though she just sat there for decades and did nothing. Not that doing so ought to excuse the abuse, mind.

All of which apparently is only worth the following:

Passing an 18-month jail term suspended for two years, the judge also ordered Bashir to attend a workshop entitled ''building better relationships'', pay £1,000 costs and banned him from contacting Ms Karim indefinitely.

Does. Not. Compute.

[Caracasus]

He misapplied sentencing guidelines for assault. As has already been mentioned here.

I'm not persuaded he did. The sentencing guideline divides Assault occasioning bodily harm into three categories with the upper two highlighting the importance of great bodily harm and while I'm not disputing her experience was terrible I'm not seeing anything suggesting great bodily harm. According to those guidelines community service would be an understandable sentence.

And all three would have to take into account culpability, under which he ticks a great number of the aggravating factors. In this instance, the sentencing guidelines have not been applied correctly.

[Jamzmania]

Perhaps the prosecutors deserve some blame for not pushing attempted murder charges.

[The New Telengana Rajj]

Why should the future of the victim have any effect on the sentencing of a past action?

Because logic... Anyways this sentence seems fine with me.

[Des-Bal]

And all three would have to take into account culpability, under which he ticks a great number of the aggravating factors. In this instance, the sentencing guidelines have not been applied correctly.

Culpability AND bodily harm with the upper two usually requiring significant bodily harm. The sentence is one of the higher ones available.

Judge Richard Mansell said his decision on the sentence was guided by the fact he was "not convinced [Bashir's then wife] was a vulnerable person" as she was "an intelligent woman with a network of friends" and a degree.

Because as we all know, if you are smart or have friends, bad things can never happen to you, and if they do, well ... you must have somehow allowed it to happen. That's the unspoken insinuation there.

"He took her into the bathroom where he grabbed a bottle of bleach and he made her drink the bleach so she would kill herself. She spat that out as she was unable to swallow it.

"Then he gave her tablets from the house and told her to take them. She did but again she was unable to swallow them," he said.
Another argument in December 2014 led to Bashir, who played cricket for Oldham, strangling her, hitting her with the bat and saying, "If I hit you with this bat with my full power then you would be dead", the court heard.

At least two attempts at forced suicide, ie murder. A third attempt, being the strangulation - though how having a network of friends or being smart prevents someone from throttling you, I have yet to grasp. And a direct threat of murder.

Obviously she reached out or this wouldn't be a case, though I can't see a reference as to how this all came to light. There was only two years there of a relationship, so this isn't as though she just sat there for decades and did nothing. Not that doing so ought to excuse the abuse, mind.

All of which apparently is only worth the following:

Passing an 18-month jail term suspended for two years, the judge also ordered Bashir to attend a workshop entitled ''building better relationships'', pay £1,000 costs and banned him from contacting Ms Karim indefinitely.

Does. Not. Compute.

You're spinning bullshit again. Vulnerability of the victim is an aggravating factor, addressing it's absence is necessary to understanding the sentence. Your taking an already pruned quote and reading into without appreciating the context.

[Des-Bal]

Perhaps the prosecutors deserve some blame for not pushing attempted murder charges.

I don't study english law but I think the standard is that the intent has to be for the person to or to cause such severe injury that their death is a certainty and even with the nasty shit he did he could almost certainly beat that.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

You're spinning bullshit again. Vulnerability of the victim is an aggravating factor, addressing it's absence is necessary to understanding the sentence. Your taking an already pruned quote and reading into without appreciating the context.

Ayup, we've reached that point, as I was afraid. How any of what I wrote there is 'spinning bullshit' as opposed to posting direct quotes, and asking how in Hades you arrived at your own suppositions is quite beyond me. They aren't 'pruned'. They are taken as whole paragraphs from the articles posted. As for context, oh I've 'appreciated it' all I think I care to.

Fact: Judge stated he doubted her vulnerability, and this was a factor in his sentencing.
Fact: She was in fact, abused by her husband at the time
Fact: The man was given a short, suspended sentence, told to take a class on bettering relationships, fined lightly, and told to have no contact with the woman
Fact: Hundreds of people, men and women, have been the victims of prior relationships having gone round the bend, come back, and killed them after making threats, or abusing them, or other such problems when the victims have been told there 'isn't enough evidence' or 'until they actually do something, we can't' or 'surely this slip of paper stating they have to keep away from you is enough protection'

You've drawn your conclusions, and I've drawn mine. Mine simply don't involve blaming the victim for their abuser's actions, nor excusing them, considering them less damaging or dangerous, or thinking that a slap on the wrist is enough to curtail what appears to be a somewhat damaged mindset that likely warrants further intervention.

Good day.

[Jamzmania]

Perhaps the prosecutors deserve some blame for not pushing attempted murder charges.

I don't study english law but I think the standard is that the intent has to be for the person to or to cause such severe injury that their death is a certainty and even with the nasty shit he did he could almost certainly beat that.

It seems like it would be a case they could win, though. Forcing her to drink bleach and then overdose on pills?

[Impireacht]

Err... that's not just domestic abuse... that's attempted murder. Jail's too damned good for him, he ought to be put to the good ol' firing squad. But I mean, it's not the intent people care about, it's the amount of damage inflicted. Yes. This man is in no way a danger to society, because his attempt to kill his wife was unsuccessful.

Probably the first time in a while I've agreed with the social justice squad on anything, I don't give a crap if it's a man or a woman being abused, education level doesn't lessen the fact that it is, indeed, abuse (well... actually attempted murder in this case, but I'm saying in a general scenario...)

[Caracasus]

Perhaps the prosecutors deserve some blame for not pushing attempted murder charges.

I don't study english law but I think the standard is that the intent has to be for the person to or to cause such severe injury that their death is a certainty and even with the nasty shit he did he could almost certainly beat that.

And all three would have to take into account culpability, under which he ticks a great number of the aggravating factors. In this instance, the sentencing guidelines have not been applied correctly.

Culpability AND bodily harm with the upper two usually requiring significant bodily harm. The sentence is one of the higher ones available.

Judge Richard Mansell said his decision on the sentence was guided by the fact he was "not convinced [Bashir's then wife] was a vulnerable person" as she was "an intelligent woman with a network of friends" and a degree.

Because as we all know, if you are smart or have friends, bad things can never happen to you, and if they do, well ... you must have somehow allowed it to happen. That's the unspoken insinuation there.

"He took her into the bathroom where he grabbed a bottle of bleach and he made her drink the bleach so she would kill herself. She spat that out as she was unable to swallow it.

"Then he gave her tablets from the house and told her to take them. She did but again she was unable to swallow them," he said.
Another argument in December 2014 led to Bashir, who played cricket for Oldham, strangling her, hitting her with the bat and saying, "If I hit you with this bat with my full power then you would be dead", the court heard.

At least two attempts at forced suicide, ie murder. A third attempt, being the strangulation - though how having a network of friends or being smart prevents someone from throttling you, I have yet to grasp. And a direct threat of murder.

Obviously she reached out or this wouldn't be a case, though I can't see a reference as to how this all came to light. There was only two years there of a relationship, so this isn't as though she just sat there for decades and did nothing. Not that doing so ought to excuse the abuse, mind.

All of which apparently is only worth the following:

Passing an 18-month jail term suspended for two years, the judge also ordered Bashir to attend a workshop entitled ''building better relationships'', pay £1,000 costs and banned him from contacting Ms Karim indefinitely.

Does. Not. Compute.

You're spinning bullshit again. Vulnerability of the victim is an aggravating factor, addressing it's absence is necessary to understanding the sentence. Your taking an already pruned quote and reading into without appreciating the context.

You know what? I'm very aware you haven't studied English law. Very aware.

I'm going to assume that you never actually bother reading or understanding on any meaningful level anything anyone posts that disagrees with you and call it a day.

[Des-Bal]

Ayup, we've reached that point, as I was afraid. How any of what I wrote there is 'spinning bullshit' as opposed to posting direct quotes, and asking how in Hades you arrived at your own suppositions is quite beyond me. They aren't 'pruned'. They are taken as whole paragraphs from the articles posted. As for context, oh I've 'appreciated it' all I think I care to.

Fact 1: Judge stated he doubted her vulnerability, and this was a factor in his sentencing.
Fact 2: She was in fact, abused by her husband at the time
Fact 3: [/i]The man was given a short, suspended sentence, told to take a class on bettering relationships, fined lightly, and told to have no contact with the woman
Fact 4: Hundreds of people, men and women, have been the victims of prior relationships having gone round the bend, come back, and killed them after making threats, or abusing them, or other such problems when the victims have been told there 'isn't enough evidence' or 'until they actually do something, we can't' or 'surely this slip of paper stating they have to keep away from you is enough protection'

You've drawn your conclusions, and I've drawn mine. Mine simply don't involve blaming the victim for their abuser's actions, nor excusing them, considering them less damaging or dangerous, or thinking that a slap on the wrist is enough to curtail what appears to be a somewhat damaged mindset that likely warrants further intervention.

Good day.

Fact 1: As a matter of the law it has to be. If she was vulnerable the sentence would have been longer. The law says he MUST look at this.
Fact 2: Undisputed, no person has argued otherwise- not even the defendant.
Fact 3: Based on the evidence he was given a LONG suspended sentence based on the sentencing guidelines. They say that generally in the absence of severe harm that Category 2 and Category 1 punishments shouldn't be applied. (the only punishments for Assault Occasioning Bodily Injury that have recommended sentences that have actual jail time as a penalty). The evidence does not suggest she suffered severe bodily harm from any of the incidents described, that means that the judge punished this with special severity that's only moderated by the fact he faced a suspended sentence.
Fact 4: Undisputed and irrelevant.

I really hope you understand that this kind of shit encourages overcharging which results in people walking free, that is actually walking free on not guilty verdicts.

[Des-Bal]

It seems like it would be a case they could win, though. Forcing her to drink bleach and then overdose on pills?

Is the practically certain result of pouring bleach in someone's mouth their death? Is the practically certain result of putting pills in someone's mouth their death? That's even before we get into other factors, or the reasonable doubt standard of proof. If they charged him with attempted murder he would have probably walked and they wouldn't have the suspended sentence and order not to contact her as a remedy.

[Gauthier]

Maybe the husband claimed he was Fighting Terrorism and the judge took that into account.

[Des-Bal]

Maybe the husband claimed he was Fighting Terrorism and the judge took that into account.

No I don't think that was it.

[Populi-Terrae]

The judge obviously didn't give a rat's behind about the victim.

"Judge Richard Mansell said Ms Karim was not vulnerable as she was "an intelligent woman with a network of friends" and a degree".

Has this judge ever heard of psychological abuse? Ms. Karim must've been terrified to say anything to her friends, lest she risk retaliation from her husband. Victims can be vulnerable in more ways than one.

"and did go on to graduate university with a 2:1 and a masters - although this has had an ongoing effect on her."

What the hell does her education have to do with her status as a domestic violence victim?

[Chessmistress]

"What a woman does for a job, her level of education or the number of friends she has makes no difference; for any woman, domestic violence is a devastating crime that has severe and long-lasting impacts."

This is the only important point.

UK (and many other countries, too) just need a law like they have in Brazil:

The new legislation alters the criminal code to describe femicide as any crime that involves domestic violence, contempt or discrimination against women.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31810284

A law against femicide, by this way even dumb judges will understand that times are going to change.

[USS Monitor]

I don't think how many friends the victim has or how educated they are should affect criminal sentencing. It's still the same crime regardless of who it was committed against.

[Chessmistress]

I don't think how many friends the victim has or how educated they are should affect criminal sentencing. It's still the same crime regardless of who it was committed against.

Yes, but also not.
While I'm sure that her status doesn't matter, and we agree about that, I also wish to highlight that this crime also clearly shows contempt against the woman just because she was a woman.
That's why a law specifically against femicide would be important.

[Neo Balka]

"What a woman does for a job, her level of education or the number of friends she has makes no difference; for any woman, domestic violence is a devastating crime that has severe and long-lasting impacts."

This is the only important point.

UK (and many other countries, too) just need a law like they have in Brazil:

The new legislation alters the criminal code to describe femicide as any crime that involves domestic violence, contempt or discrimination against women.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31810284

A law against femicide, by this way even dumb judges will understand that times are going to change.

What in the name of god is femicide?