Suspended sentence for Mustafa Bashir after physically, psychologically abusing wife

[Merseysider]

How can this possibly be allowed to stand? Is a suspended sentence the standard for making death threats, forcing pills and bleach down a woman's throat, and beating her up with a cricket bat?

A cricketer who beat his wife with his bat, made her drink bleach and called her friends 'English slag girls' has been freed by a judge who was 'not convinced' the victim was vulnerable.

Mustafa Bashir, 34, left hotel receptionist Fakhara Karim, 33, a broken woman after he beat her, berated her for wearing Western clothes and tried to turn her against her family, Manchester Crown Court heard.

Bashir, who plays in a cricket league in Oldham, struck Ms Karim with his bat for talking on the phone [...] he also forced her to take pills and bleach [...] and told her to kill herself.

Judge Richard Mansell QC said he was 'not convinced' Ms Karim was a vulnerable person. He said 'Sometimes women become trapped in a relationship where they lose their support network [...] This is not the case.'

Bashir admitted assault causing actual bodily harm. He was given an 18 month suspended sentence [...] after his lawyer told the court he could take up an offer to play for Leicestershire if he was spared prison.'

The attorney general has been urged to examine the sentencing remarks of a judge who freed a man guilty of domestic abuse because he did not believe the victim was vulnerable.

Judge Richard Mansell QC ordered Bashir to attend a workshop entitled “building better relationships”, pay £1,000 costs and banned him from contacting Karim. Mansell said in his sentencing remarks that he did not believe Fakhara Karim, 33, was vulnerable as she was “an intelligent woman with a network of friends” and a college degree.

The sentencing at Manchester crown court provoked outrage among campaigners, who said it showed a “shocking ignorance around the impact of domestic violence on women”.

Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said she would raise the case with the attorney general and justice secretary. “The words of the judge, if they have been reported accurately, are frankly astonishing,” she said. "The idea that a woman’s educational status or her friendships are being used to judge her vulnerability completely fails to understand the nature of domestic abuse.

The court was told that he once struck Karim over her back with his cricket bat because he felt she spent too long talking to a friend on the phone, saying: “If I hit you with this bat with my full power then you would be dead.”

Karim eventually went to the police and said: “I did fear for my life; he told me he was going to kill me.” In a statement to court, she added: “Before I met Mustafa Bashir I was a confident, active and humorous person. I looked after myself and liked dressing up. It will take a long time to get back to how I was before. My education results got better after the split and I got a 2:1 and was able to qualify for my master’s. I still find it very difficult to trust people.”

There are concerns the judge may have been misled after Bashir’s lawyer told the court his client would sign a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club if he was spared jail.

A spokesman for the club said it was “bemused” by the claim and said that any suggestion it had offered Bashir a contract was “completely false”. He added: “The club have never spoken to Mustafa Bashir or an agent, nor offered a contract to the player.”

In case anybody recognises him, attached is a photo of the nasty little bugger, taken from the S*n. I can't accept that the judge understands the severity of Bashir's actions - domestic abuse only gets worse with time.

 

[yorkie]

Our legal system is a mess; we are too soft on perpetrators of violent crime (and too hard on certain other types of crime) in my opinion.

There's a couple of people I regularly clash with on this forum who defend lenient sentences for violent crimes, but I'll pre-empt their inevitable replies by saying I will agree to disagree with them!

 

[ExRes]

Our legal system is a mess; we are too soft on perpetrators of violent crime (and too hard on certain other types of crime) in my opinion.

There's a couple of people I regularly clash with on this forum who defend lenient sentences for violent crimes, but I'll pre-empt their inevitable replies by saying I will agree to disagree with them!

I wonder if those people would be for lenient sentences if it were them or their family members being violently abused

It seems that this offence is one not covered under the 'unduly lenient' guidelines and that it can only be recalled by the 'Judge' himself, one thing that could help is that a defence claim regarding a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club could be proved false

 

[AlterEgo]

"Mustafa Bashir" - nominative determinism.

 

[Qwerty133]

I wonder if those people would be for lenient sentences if it were them or their family members being violently abused

It seems that this offence is one not covered under the 'unduly lenient' guidelines and that it can only be recalled by the 'Judge' himself, one thing that could help is that a defence claim regarding a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club could be proved false

http://www.leicestershireccc.co.uk/news/2017/march/mustafa-bashir.html

 

[Merseysider]

...one thing that could help is that a defence claim regarding a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club could be proved false

I would like to think so. I didn't see the following in the original article I quoted:

There are concerns the judge may have been misled after Bashir’s lawyer told the court his client would sign a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club if he was spared jail.

A spokesman for the club said it was “bemused” by the claim and said that any suggestion it had offered Bashir a contract was “completely false”. He added: “The club have never spoken to Mustafa Bashir or an agent, nor offered a contract to the player.”

The whole thing is a farce. Imo whether or not a sporting career will be affected should not be reason to issue a light sentence - if anything it should serve to ensure a prison sentence given that sports players are role models!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wonder if those people would be for lenient sentences if it were them or their family members being violently abused

I think it depends on your temperament. A university acquiantance of mine lost their partner in a terrorist shooting three years ago, and whilst they are still very distressed about their loss they haven't turned that into a desire for revenge or to string terrorists up.

I am astounded that the sentence was suspended in this case, though. It's a shame it can't be dealt with by the Attorney General. But idiotic comments from judges who don't understand things are not new: look at what happened to the late Jill Saward.

 

[ExRes]

I think it depends on your temperament. A university acquiantance of mine lost their partner in a terrorist shooting three years ago, and whilst they are still very distressed about their loss they haven't turned that into a desire for revenge or to string terrorists up.

I take your point, but stopping leniency in sentencing shouldn't be confused with 'revenge and stringing up terrorists' as you put it

 

[Merseysider]

A further update:

Crown lawyers are investigating after the club he told the judge had signed him say they don't know who he is
Prosecutors say they are considering an appeal after an abusive husband walked free from court after claiming jail could wreck his career as a professional cricketer.

An apparent defence claim, noted by the judge, that a prison sentence would have lost Bashir a contract with Leicestershire County Cricket Club (LCCC) has been rejected by the club, which denies it has ever been in contact with Bashir.

The CPS said: "We are aware of recent developments relating to this case and are currently considering our options."

Anna Soubry, Conservative MP Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire, said: "Police need to get a statement from LCCC.

"They may want to consider whether any other charge needs to be brought if the defendant has deliberately advanced something that is not true to reduce the sentence and/or keep him out of prison."

While the offence is not one where the sentence can be referred to the Court of Appeal as "unduly lenient", the judge has 56 days to recall it if doubt is cast on the grounds for the sentence.

Could someone please explain why the sentence cannot legally be considered unduly lenient?

 

[AlterEgo]

A further update:



Could someone please explain why the sentence cannot legally be considered unduly lenient?

Only certain types of case can be reviewed, including:

murder
rape
robbery
some child sex crimes and child cruelty
some serious fraud
some serious drug crimes
crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion

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

 

[Tetchytyke]

Could someone please explain why the sentence cannot legally be considered unduly lenient?

There are very limited types of offence which can be dealt with by the Attorney General under the undue leniency procedures, and Actual Bodily Harm is not one of them.

I take your point, but stopping leniency in sentencing shouldn't be confused with 'revenge and stringing up terrorists' as you put it

My point was more that not all victims want to see severe punishment, so it doesn't necessarily follow that those of us who prefer rehabilitation would change our tune if it were our loved ones who were affected.

I don't think a lot of the "lenient" sentences that are criticised are actually particularly lenient. Some of them are though. This one seems unduly lenient, the sentence against the late Jill Saward's rapists was another, and both were based on a misunderstanding as to how a victim is impacted.

 

[dgl]

If the person in question was given a suspended sentence due to the possible loss of a contract that the other party has since rubbished you have to wonder why the factual accuracy of the claim was not checked, it is not as if it was something that would have been difficult to do.

All looks a bit ridiculous at the moment and frankly do the courts really think that a man accused of such crimes would want to employ something like that?

 

[Dent]

I wonder if those people would be for lenient sentences if it were them or their family members being violently abused

I don't really see what relevance this has. You or a member of your family being violently abused does not automatically make you a legal expert, and is likely to cause an emotional state that will impair your ability to make a balanced, objective assessment of the most appropriate sentence.

What is what you someone with no particular legal expertise might think if they were in an impaired mental state really a reliable indication of? I would suggest nothing useful.

 

[455driver]

There's a couple of people I regularly clash with on this forum who defend lenient sentences for violent crimes, but I'll pre-empt their inevitable replies by saying I will agree to disagree with them!

And I will agree with you.

Now who is for meeting up with this 'person' and hitting him with a cricket bat few times and pouring bleach down his throat?

Oh if I am caught I cant go to prison either because it will infringe my childrens yoomun roites to a family life!

 

[Merseysider]

And I will agree with you.

Now who is for meeting up with this 'person' and hitting him with a cricket bat few times and pouring bleach down his throat?

Oh if I am caught I cant go to prison either because it will infringe my childrens yoomun roites to a family life!

I wouldn't go out of my way to inflict violence on him, but let's just say if I was driving, and he stepped in front of me... well I certainly wouldn't slow down.

Does anybody know if he has become a naturalised British citizen? As a Pakistani, and a convicted criminal, surely he is 'eligible' for deportation? The US and Canada would do exactly that - so there's no reason why we shouldn't. It's cheaper than imprisoning him would be when he commits his next crime.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wouldn't go out of my way to inflict violence on him, but let's just say if I was driving, and he stepped in front of me... well I certainly wouldn't slow down.

Does anybody know if he has become a naturalised British citizen? As a Pakistani, and a convicted criminal, surely he is 'eligible' for deportation? The US and Canada would do exactly that - so there's no reason why we shouldn't. It's cheaper than imprisoning him would be when he commits his next crime.

Only the right wing press like the Sun have picked up that he's Pakistani, and if he was eligible for deportation you can bet they'd have picked up on that too.

 

[ExRes]

I don't really see what relevance this has. You or a member of your family being violently abused does not automatically make you a legal expert, and is likely to cause an emotional state that will impair your ability to make a balanced, objective assessment of the most appropriate sentence.

What is what you someone with no particular legal expertise might think if they were in an impaired mental state really a reliable indication of? I would suggest nothing useful.

As someone else has said, we shall have to agree to disagree, if my sister had bleach poured down her throat, was threatened, abused and assaulted by her husband I really don't think I'd agree that a pathetic suspended sentence given by a moron judge who felt she was more responsible than him was sufficient, I don't need to be 'a legal expert' to work that one out, perhaps you would accept this farcical 'sentence' if the victim was closely related to you, if so that's up to you

 

[Dent]

As someone else has said, we shall have to agree to disagree, if my sister had bleach poured down her throat, was threatened, abused and assaulted by her husband I really don't think I'd agree that a pathetic suspended sentence given by a moron judge who felt she was more responsible than him was sufficient, I don't need to be 'a legal expert' to work that one out, perhaps you would accept this farcical 'sentence' if the victim was closely related to you, if so that's up to you

What actual legal expertise would being in that situation give you that you would not otherwise have?

Would that situation enhance your rational judgement, and help you to make an impartial and balanced assessment of the situation against applicable sentencing guidelines and case law? I suspect that it would not, and it would in fact do the opposite by clouding your judgement with emotions.

Your argument is a typical attempt to appeal to emotions to override rational judgement. This is an obvious and well known logical fallacy.

 

[ExRes]

What actual legal expertise would being in that situation give you that you would not otherwise have?

Would that situation enhance your rational judgement, and help you to make an impartial and balanced assessment of the situation against applicable sentencing guidelines and case law? I suspect that it would not, and it would in fact do the opposite by clouding your judgement with emotions.

Your argument is a typical attempt to appeal to emotions to override rational judgement. This is an obvious and well known logical fallacy.

I don't claim to be a legal anything and nor do I claim any legal expertise, at the same time I don't need to be legally trained to work out that this man has got away with incredible abuse virtually without penalty, perhaps you could explain the 'rational judgement' that has resulted in this so called sentence and help me to see the light through my emotionally clouded judgement

Your argument is a typical attempt to go down the 'let's do nothing and hope it goes away' path and will lead to nothing other than a lot of finger pointing and surprised faces when he goes back and finishes the job off next time, a fat lot of good that will do the victims when the abusers can see this type of miscarriage of 'justice' is there for them to take advantage of

 

[Merseysider]

How is a suspended sentence even remotely rational?!

The thug grabbed his wife by the neck and squeezed until a member of the public threatened to go to the police.

Prosecutor Roger Brown said: “The parties went back home where the argument continued. He grabbed her neck again, so much that she said it was hurting a lot and at one point he picked up a knife and said that he would kill himself and she begged him not to.”

Bashir then dragged his wife to the bathroom and forced her to drink bleach so she would “kill herself”.

The brute also gave her pills to swallow before phoning her family to tell them Fakhara was “not obeying him”.

The man is a monster and needs to be kept away from the public, for their safety.

 

[Dent]

I don't claim to be a legal anything and nor do I claim any legal expertise

However you do claim that a judgement you would make if you were in a severely impaired mental state is more reliable than that of a professional judge whose mental state is not similarly impaired.

at the same time I don't need to be legally trained to work out that this man has got away with incredible abuse virtually without penalty,

Based on what objective reasoning and what expertise? If you were legally trained then you would be able to make a more legally sound, reasoned judgement than your completely unsubstantiated pronouncement.

perhaps you could explain the 'rational judgement' that has resulted in this so called sentence and help me to see the light through my emotionally clouded judgement

The rational judgement of the judge, who unlike you is a legal expert, and whose mental state is not impaired by a family member having been attacked.

Your argument is a typical attempt to go down the 'let's do nothing and hope it goes away' path and will lead to nothing other than a lot of finger pointing and surprised faces when he goes back and finishes the job off next time, a fat lot of good that will do the victims when the abusers can see this type of miscarriage of 'justice' is there for them to take advantage of

What argument do you think I am making? The only arguments I am making is for rational consideration to not be undermined by appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies.

You seem to be attempting to create a strawman, which is another obvious logical fallacy.

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder if those people would be for lenient sentences if it were them or their family members being violently abused

Perhaps not, but they might also believe that in such a case noone should listen to them when they argue for harsh punishment.

The whole point of our judicial system is that the victim does not get to decide punishment as they are clearly not impartial.
Otherwise many crimes would likely end in the perpetrator being tortured to death.

 

[Groningen]

Luckely cricket is not a big of a sport in the Netherlands. In the USA it is not strange to have a baseball bat in the car.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't need to be legally trained to work out that this man has got away with incredible abuse virtually without penalty

I think in this case the sentence was unduly lenient. It happens. The judge misunderstood the impact on the victim and the judge was hoodwinked by a defendant who persuaded his advocate to lie in court.

There are cases where sentences are unduly lenient, that's why there is the unduly lenient sentencing procedure in place.

In most cases, though, the sentence is bang on the money for what happened, who did it, and what mitigating factors were in place.

The Sentencing Council have a website- You Be The Judge- which explains a lot of this with case studies. It's interesting. http://www.ybtj.justice.gov.uk/

 

[ExRes]

You seem to be attempting to create a strawman, which is another obvious logical fallacy.

I totally and utterly disagree with every word you have written on this case and your assumption that emotion is the basis for what I, and many others, consider to be a decent and proper sentence based on the crime committed, your final comment, quoted above, is a ridiculous misuse of the word meaning nothing and is a perfect reason for our 'conversation' to end

 

[me123]

There's a couple of people I regularly clash with on this forum who defend lenient sentences for violent crimes, but I'll pre-empt their inevitable replies by saying I will agree to disagree with them!

Well I don't always agree with you in this regard, but it's hard to imagine a situation less worthy of a custodial sentence than this one. What on earth does the victim being "vulnerable" have to do with anything? She's clearly vulnerable enough to be in this awful position.

I'm not a huge fan of imprisonment unless it's necessary, but for someone who has repeatedly taken actions that put his wife's life in danger I can really see no alternative. At the very least, the woman needs the opportunity to get as far away from this man as possible and have a chance at rebuilding her life, and removing this monster from society would achieve that. I will eat my hat if attending a "Building Better Relationships" seminar has any impact on this "man" whatsoever.

(Of course, I'm only reading the publicly available accounts - the judge may be privy to information that I haven't seen, but I struggle to imagine any circumstances that remove the need for a custodial sentence - the bizarre story about Leicestershire CCC is most certainly not an excuse for a lenient sentence!).

 

[455driver]

What actual legal expertise would being in that situation give you that you would not otherwise have?

Would that situation enhance your rational judgement, and help you to make an impartial and balanced assessment of the situation against applicable sentencing guidelines and case law? I suspect that it would not, and it would in fact do the opposite by clouding your judgement with emotions.

Your argument is a typical attempt to appeal to emotions to override rational judgement. This is an obvious and well known logical fallacy.

What gave him the right to do it to his wife?

Emotional response, well yeah damn right we are emotional about it!
Dont confuse emotional with irrational because if the law had done what it is supposed to do we wouldnt be 'making noises' about it!

Dent, a simple yes/no question for you-

Do you think the sentence is appropriate for the crime committed and the suffering that the victim has undergone and will continue to undergo?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Luckely cricket is not a big of a sport in the Netherlands. In the USA it is not strange to have a baseball bat in the car.

Whilst baseball in itself is not a major British sport, certain of the British criminal fraternity do seem to have a liking for baseball bats...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Only the right wing press like the Sun have picked up that he's Pakistani, and if he was eligible for deportation you can bet they'd have picked up on that too.

The perceived role of women, especially in the more rural areas of Pakistan, is not what should be expected in Britain. We will be having apologists for honour killings coming out soon at this rate.

 

[Dent]

Emotional response, well yeah damn right we are emotional about it!

You admit that you are emotional about it. Do you therefore accept that your emotions may be perverting your judgement, and for that reason you may not be making an entirely balanced and objective assessment?

if the law had done what it is supposed to do we wouldnt be 'making noises' about it!

What legal procedure was not correctly followed?

Do you think the sentence is appropriate for the crime committed and the suffering that the victim has undergone and will continue to undergo?

That is not my decision, it is the job of the judge to make that assessment in line with due process. In this case the judge has evidently decided that is it.