It's very hard to find an equivalent case to
this one where a woman inflicted that sort of damage to a man. It's also incredible to believe that he only got 4 years in prison.
No "whataboutism" about this and it is far from an isolated case.
Is the article just written badly... it's not clear to me what sentence was for what offence.
"In March 2017, he was sentenced to four years — with two suspended — for
threatening to kill another ex girlfriend and her partner in 2013. "
What was the sentence for the actual assault?
Actually, the sentence for the assault is in a photo byline... "three and a half years with 12 months suspended for assaulting her..."
I'm not trying to go down the whataboutism route, just that in general the sentences handed out by the courts for assault are pathetic. I think this more reflects that than any gender bias.
The relevant comparison is if a man convicted of similar assault of another man of youth would get a different sentence.
I think that the fact that it wasn't a once off incident and a protection order was violated should have led to a longer sentence too i.e. there should have been multiple convictions, and they should have run consecutively. But the courts don't seem to think that way.
It's the same if a member of the emergency services is assaulted and you hear their unions saying they want new laws just for them... well if a citizen, regardless of uniform, is assaulted and they think the law isn't strong enough then they should call for protection for all citizens.
Ps I wonder if a US style plea bargain of copping a guilty plea to common assault v trial for higher charge could be a factor also.