UKC

https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/latest-news/2017/13/cricketer-spared-ja...

In mentioning his wife's 2.1 degree, and her support network of friends, the judge can seem to be (not explicitly) asking why she let it happen to her.

He poured bleach down her throat and hit her with his cricket bat, what does a husband need to do to his partner (or anybody really) to go to jail?

Apparently, as a member of the public, one can lodge complaints about judges....?

In reply to Timmd:
If events did happen as reported it's an awful result.

However the article is just a rewording of one in the Daily Mail, and already admits factual inaccuracies (links with leicestershire) which weren't originally factchecked by inept reporters out for a quick sensational story, so I strongly doubt it's a true and accurate report of the court case.

It's easy to criticise the judge - but they sat through the trial and heard all the charges, evidence and argument on both sides of the case, we have not.

In reply to Timmd:


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-39409193

There are two people in this report who need a cricket bat taking to them, she is not one of them

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Really...because it now looks like he may well be facing contempt of court/ perjury...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/27/judge-says-wife-forced-drink-ble...

In reply to Timmd:

You can express concerns about the results of trials. You can write to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If one person does, and they do not have to be connected to the case, the DPP, must investigate.

Now are you going to write, or not?
If not , why not?

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:


Reported on radio 4 this morning that his defence argued that a custodial sentence would scupper a professional career with Leicestershire. The cricket club have since denied any contact with the defendant.

In reply to Oldnick:

I never really understand the 'oh, but a jail sentence will stop the defendant doing x' argument. So what? Maybe they shouldn't have committed the crime.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Spot on. Especially with sportsmen in this country for some reason?

In reply to Lenin:

That's good to know.


You sound like my mother. Do you know if there's a time limit on this? An older brother of somebody at school (whom I no longer know) managed to end the career of a bus driver by beating him up a few years ago, leaving him with physical problems ever since. He wasn't even sent to jail, and a sense of injustice has stuck with me a little bit ever since.

In reply to Timmd:


Sorry ;-(

I do not know tbh. But you can definitely do it as I was listeneing to a Radio programme and some top legal eagle was on and was telling about it. I was surprised you did not have to have any connection but he was quite positive about it all.

Sometimes letting off steam on UKC is all it needs, but if you want to, it is nice to know you can so something.

In reply to Lenin:
People sounding like one's parents isn't always a bad thing, I try and badger my friends into doing what they ought to be doing, I'm sure they appreciate it Yes it is nice to know. Hopefully something will happen now it's in the media, but grumbling to other people online may not change much in this life, if that's all most of us do.

In reply to Timmd: Link for anyone minded to complain about the judge, Mansell QC:

http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/

The more people who speak up the better.

In reply to Alyson:
A barrister discusses the legal position here.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/03/27/was-the-cricketer-who-forced-his-...

Which sheds some light on things and is probably worth reading before complaining. I'm not really convinced though; it reads rather as apologetics for the legal profession.

In reply to Timmd:

It seems difficult to get sent to prison in this country, although maybe if you take a dump on an MPs lawn you may get banged up for a bit.
Why should potentially having a career at a cricket team be in any way mitigating circumstances for battering your wife? or in the often reported cases of drivers using mobile phones killing cyclists while already having been convicted numerous times of the same offence but keeping their licences because they'd lose their jobs.
Surely having more to lose should encourage you not to be a tw*t.

In reply to MG:

Thanks for the link, I found it enlightening. It certainly explains the judge's comments on her education.

He still thinks the sentence is probably unduly lenient and it will be interesting to see whether the judge does actually recall the defendant to address those denials by the cricket club.

In reply to Timmd:

I cant believe what Im reading. Is having a career at a non important cricket club more important than pouring bleach down someone's throat and hitting her with a bat?

No, seriously, someone wake me up.

In reply to Alyson:

http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/


Thanks.

In reply to Luke90:


Sentence has been reviewed and has been "un-suspended", or whatever the correct legal term is:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/07/man-who-beat-wife-with-cric...

(Note: AFAIK this is nothing to do with perjury or contempt of court. The false statement about the contract with Leicestershire cricket club was made to the defendant's lawyer, not under oath in court. The 18 months in prison is the punishment for the assaults on his wife - previously it was suspended but now it applies immediately, as a result of the plea for leniency having been found to have been based on a false instruction to his lawyer, ie because the facts are now recognised to be other than previously advised. He has not [yet] received any punishment specifically for having lied to his lawyer.)

In reply to Timmd:

On face value this is a disgrace.

I read yesterday about a woman who drifted onto the wrong side of the road in her car killing a pensioner. She claimed to have no knowledge of how it happened and was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving. Beggars belief.

In reply to Timmd:


the judge can seem to be (not explicitly) asking why she let it happen to her

I suspect it's more that the judge is justifying not imposing a greater penalty which may be justified if the assault is against a vulnerable person, which may have a certain legal definition which wasn't met in this case. So he should've gone to prison for 10 years instead of 12.

How you can do that to another person and not go to prison is beyond me.

In reply to Timmd:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/04/07/post-script-mustafa-bashir-a-non-...

A useful update on this thread, which just goes to show the woeful state of reporting in the so called quality press these days.