- How has this man from Kashmir acquired two New Zealand born wives? What kind of marriage are we talking about? Is one a religious marriage only? Are both? What benefits, if any, are they receiving from DSW? Why?
- Watching the video clip on the Herald page we see the beaten wife emotionally defending her poor besieged husband. I wonder what CYF intervention is occurring now that a High Court Judge states that this is a "rather disturbing factor"?
- And why does the Herald not deem it of import to elucidate on the above for its readers?
- Mohib manifests a great & new found concern for the wellbeing of his family - a concern missing when he was beating one of his wives with a hammer - yet appears to genuinely feel victimised. Given the decision of the first Judge that is understandable.
- He is from "the troubled Kashmir region". Does that mean, yet again, that his violence is "cultural" - perhaps even evidence of PTSD? Yet another case of "Absolutely Nothing to do with Islam" eh? Passages like Qur'an 4.34* advocating wife beating might be a useful starting point to clear up from where such "cultural" practices emanate.
- Given District Court Judge Philippa Cunningham's speckled history has she done enough to get a chat with the person who oversees judges yet?
* Q 4.34: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. (Oh yes, I think we can all see how Exalted and Grand this is.)
It's never OK to beat your wife just as it's not legal to have more than one wife at a time. Neither should the government be funding illegal activity via Social Welfare. It would be nice if these facts were highlighted by someone.
Why do we seem to be trying so very hard to understand the man's perspective? Doesn't this whole fiasco rather typify the questionable assumptions and perspective of the media and various authorities these days? Far too much seems to be decided on emotion and the ineffable conviction that if someone is a member of a vague, unofficial, protected "victim class", they must be shielded from the standards that apply to all the rest of us.
We see this all around the Western world. Somehow "one law for all" is being forgotten. Along with the real victims.
Hammer assault case: Yasir Mohib fears for family's future
by Jared Savage and Phil Taylor.
An Auckland man whose discharge without conviction for beating his wife with a hammer has been overturned says he fears the consequences for his family.Yasir Mohib denies a hammer was involved but admits assaulting his wife. The facts of the case are that the assault occurred after she complained they weren't holding hands while watching a movie together.
He told the Herald today he was "disappointed" the decision to discharge him had been overruled by the High Court but was prepared to accept his punishment.
But he fears his family will be punished too if it means he is deported to Pakistan. His family do not want to be split up and deportation would mean his two New Zealand-born wives and their five Kiwi children would go with him.
He is from the troubled Kashmir region. They want to raise their children in New Zealand because opportunities would be greater here for them, he and his wives said.
"If I did wrong I should be punished for it but not my whole family," Mohib told the Herald.
"That's my only point, that it could affect my whole family, my five little kids, my wives. There is no way we are going to be separated. So if I get deported it means all of these guys need to go to Pakistan."
In September last year, Mohib pleaded guilty to charges of common assault, assault with a weapon and threatening behaviour.
He said he had pleaded guilty to the charge of assault with a weapon because he was desperate to be reunited with his family from whom he was separated after the assault.
"I wanted to go back to my family and they wanted me to come back but there was no way until I pleaded guilty...."No, there was no hammer involved. There was an argument. There were bruises. I punched her with my empty hand." [Graeme: That would merely be a fist then?]
The victim, his wife Fatimah, also told the Herald that no weapon was involved. She said the hammer came to be part of the statement of facts put before the court because of pressure from members of the wider family.
They have since had a fourth child. Mohib has one child with his second wife.
But both the district and high court judges took the view that a hammer was used.
In April, Judge Philippa Cunningham ruled the consequences of convictions for Mohib were out of proportion to the gravity of the offending and discharged him without conviction. [Graeme: this does seem to demonstrate a disturbing protective instinct for a hammer wielding thug to the exclusion of the real victims.]
She placed particular importance on the possibility the 31-year-old might be deported to Pakistan despite the legal principle that a sentencing judge should not usurp the role of Immigration authorities.
Her decision was later overturned by the High Court.
In his judgment on Mohib, Justice Edwin Wylie said the district court judge failed to correctly identify the seriousness of the attack but was right, in his opinion, to conclude a hammer was used.[Graeme: This is all being written in a very matter of fact manner but consider: When's the last time you used a hammer on one of your wives chaps?]
Judge Wylie said he had seen photographs of the bruises. "The bruises are significant and they appear to have an inner round ring which I suspect is consistent with a blow from an object such as a hammer." He had doubts about Mohib's insight into the offending and said the victim's retraction of her initial statement to police was a "rather disturbing factor in the domestic violence context".
"The assault was vicious and premeditated. Mr Mohib has denied full responsibility and he has sought to shift the blame to the victim and her family," said Justice Wylie.
"In my view, the Judge failed to fully appreciate the gravity of the offending and she placed excessive weight on the immigration consequences."
The High Court judge earlier ruled Judge Cunningham made an error in the law by usurping the function of immigration authorities. "This was not a case where convictions would necessarily lead to deportation ... Parliament has entrusted the immigration authorities with the obligation to consider whether persons convicted of offending ought to be allowed to remain in New Zealand.
"Finally, the [Solicitor-General] argued that the judge's decision to discharge without conviction was plainly wrong," said Justice Wylie.
"For the reasons I have set out, I agree."
He convicted Mohib and sent the matter back to the Auckland District Court for sentencing.
Mohib has worked in New Zealand for property management and security firms and ran his own meat wholesaling business. He is not currently working. His work visa was not renewed after he was charged with the assault. His application for permanent residency is on hold, he said.
It's the third time Judge Cunningham has been over-ruled after granting a discharge without conviction. The previous cases involved a well-known comedian who pleaded guilty to performing an indecent act on his daughter, and the son of the Maori King on charges of burglary, theft and drink driving.
- NZ Herald