Huhne's sorry now

06 Feb 2013 00:22 #759480

Antepli Ejderha wrote:

So the wife was motivated by revenge in bringing this all out in the open according to the trial today, I wonder what sentence she will get?

She hasn't been found guilty of anything yet. But if she is, she surely has to go much the same way as him.

06 Feb 2013 00:54 #759490

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:

If the argument is that he's wasted taxpayers' money, it's surely better that he repay society through community service than waste more money keeping him in prison.

Wouldn't have just bought his way out of prison like that? That doesn't sound fair.

  • Calvert
  • Offline
  • Michigan seems like a dream to me now
06 Feb 2013 11:29 #759571

Aw man, have a look at their cunty personalised number plate.

Pair of wankers.

To the guillotine .

06 Feb 2013 16:57 #759691

Huhne's son is Rude Kid from Viz, isn't he?

"Happy Christmas son!"

"Piss up a rope, fuckstick"

09 Feb 2013 16:35 #760686

I'm feeling a bit sorry for Huhne at the moment. Vicki Pryce's defence depends upon her successfully arguing Huhne was a cunt- at least a bigger one than he is. He can't defend himself in the media because we'd say "Piss off, cunt". So he's reliant on the prosecution in Pryce's case putting his side.

Who's the defendant here? Maybe we're all defendants, mannnn!

  • Duncan Gardner
  • Offline
  • Everyone else taken over by the Fear
09 Feb 2013 17:13 #760698

Is she claiming duress as part of her defence? It seems to include Huhne trying to force her to have multiple abortions. Still looks pretty weak.

Author-judge Constance Briscoe and hack Isobel Oakeshott have been involved, allegedly helping VP to smear CH in various media. Might be interesting to see Oakeshott squirm, she's a bit too smug for my liking on Andrew Neil's show.

09 Feb 2013 18:01 #760711

As I understand it, her defence has to establish something called " marital coercion"' , so this strikes me as a rather predictable and perfectly valid line of attack.

20 Feb 2013 16:36 #764878

Jury discharged.

Sounds like the judge is not pleased with them.

BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said it was unusual for a jury to ask so many questions, including one in which they had asked whether they could speculate on what had been in Ms Pryce's mind.

He said another question was: "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?"

20 Feb 2013 16:45 #764884
20 Feb 2013 16:55 #764888

Why good grief? They seem perfectly reasonable questions to ask of a judge, given they're ordinary people being asked to judge a case in which the facts of the case don't appear to be disputed, but the issue is whether martial coercion was a factor; if it was, not guilty, if it wasn't then guilty.

In other words, deciding a judgement which depends on interpreting a law from the 1920s in which very, very different assumptions about men, women, marriage, obligation, duty etc pertained seems to me very hard indeed.

Bet Huhne's kicking himself though. He could have survived, he'll be thinking now.

20 Feb 2013 16:58 #764889

There's a few reasonable points in there but several of their questions could be summarised as "can we make things up?"

20 Feb 2013 16:58 #764890

8. Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, ie she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

The judge said the question was not for this case. And Pryce had not suggested any such reasoning was behind her decision to take the points.

Is it reasonable to ask something as utterly random and unrelated as this?

20 Feb 2013 17:04 #764894

The judge was clearly annoyed at the nature of some of the questions (including that one), which (pace NHH) strike me as prima facie evidence of their being at least one very loose cannon on the jury.

20 Feb 2013 20:09 #764980

My thoughts entirely ursus. It seems highly likely to me that some of the questions are the outcome of a bunch of sensible jurors having failed to persuade some idiot on the jury of the (obvious to most people, especially jurors who will have just had judge's general guidance) principle that you can't, as Central Rain puts it, just make stuff up, and thinking "well we can't talk sense into him/her, but perhaps he/she will get it if we get the judge to spell it out".

Last Edit: 20 Feb 2013 20:10 by Evariste Euler Gauss.
20 Feb 2013 23:15 #765051

The judge did allow a majority verdict, though. So it needs three idiots. Or the one idiot to be pressuasive enough to carry two others with them.

21 Feb 2013 01:53 #765091

Don't worry, Maria Hutchings will cut through the crap with common sense. And her son who was destined to be a heart surgeon, aged 5.

Unless she's kept quiet by Grant Shapps. Imagine being unable to say much unless you get Shapps to approve it first. They had to bring fucking Boris in to make the campaign look interesting today.

21 Feb 2013 15:57 #765347

Tory candidate fails to show for hustings on Radio 5, with the excuse that she needs preparation time for a visit to a factory with David Cameron.

Looks like they've decided to lose this by-election than have her damage the Tories nationally.

21 Feb 2013 16:36 #765372

A legal question about the VP thing. Her legal team made claims that her husband coerced her into having abortions as part of the framework of bullying behaviour that would tally with taking the points thing, does she have to actually provide medical evidence if asked to back up this assertion at all?

As Chris Huhne isn't a defendant and can't confirm to deny this story then I'm wondering if it should be considered admissible without such evidence?

  • Wyatt Earp
  • Offline
  • This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal
21 Feb 2013 16:54 #765377

The defence must establish marital coercion on a balance of probabilities. I should imagine lack of corroboration would somewhat weaken the claim, and that juries may take such lack of corroboration into account, but that it falls under "matters of fact" and is therefore up to them to determine using "reasonable inference".

  • Wyatt Earp
  • Offline
  • This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal
21 Feb 2013 16:55 #765378

I can't see grounds for ruling it inadmissible. It's neither speculation nor hearsay. It's a factual claim that may or may not be believed by the jury.

Time to create page: 0.172 seconds

Sign up for the WSC Weekly Howl

Just enter your email address