Cardinal Sin said "Going to be fascinating to see what happens now with his ex-wife. If I am reading this right, she dropped in him it relatively recently for a ten year old offence which she colluded to by taking the points. He then denied this forcing the court case and she then looks to have "agreed" to change her version of events to support him before the trial. I am left wondering whether or not he felt he couldn't trust her not to change her story and dob him in it a second time, and therefore had to plead guilty at the eleventh hour. She must surely revise her plea now leaving the pair of them in deep doo-doo. All for a spending offence? Nothing like a woman scorned."
I don't think this is correct. I suspect that when he received the notice he nominated his wife and later told her what he had done, pressurising her to agree to accept the points (which she did.) Later she let others know the truth but of course couldn't come out and say so publicly without dobbing herself in it. The prosecution were going to run a very complicated argument in which they would, in effect, be able to use her account to others to prosecute him and then her. She didn't agree to change her account to support him but to demonstrate that he had 'forced' her to take his points.
I'm not a betting man but whereas I think he will get 'three hots and a cot' at public expense, I think her defence could well find favour with a jury.
As for Plebgate, how is it not possible to feel that Mitchell was stitched up by the police, Hayward, and number 10? Aided and abetted by the Sun, naturally. This one will run for some time yet.
Nasty arrogant and controlling multi-millionaire. Got elected portraying himself as a happily married family man of 26 years, then divorcing his wife to marry his secretary with who he’d been having an affair. When he failed to get his case dismissed and faced with damming evidence from his son, he had little choice to plead guilty. The conservatives will probably win the by- election as many Lib. Dem voters who voted in the last election to keep the Tories out feel betrayed and will abstain, could be interesting if nutty Nigel of U.K.I.P. stood. He said in a statement outside court today that the event happened over 10 years ago, almost as if it was it was not important. The judge will not be impressed that Hume dragged the case on for so long and will send him to prison for at least one year.(I hope)
Yeah, that pissed me off. He said it was 10 years ago, as if it shouldn't count now. Makes no difference & he obviously has no regrets, other than being found out.
Pleads guilty, obviously just before he's about to be found guilty. I really do think that if you're a politician you should be "whiter than white".
There is no such person as whiter than white, any cross section of society will have it's good and bad. Come back at me any of those who have never told a lie.
Maybe we should have a "Paragons of Virtue" clique.
If this excuse for a man has any remorse at all, he should now offer to pay for the FULL costs of investigating and prosecuting this case and apologise for taking valuable resources away from more important work. I'm not holding my breathe.
annoys me that he says the offence was 10 years ago, the biggest offence is lying about it and he was still guilty of that two days ago. I think he named his wife and then persuaded her accept it - her marital coercion defence may be enough.
He says the offence was 10 years ago, so surely he's been lying for 10 years. Really hope UKIP and Nigel Farage win the by-election to shake our miserable load of politician up!
I can't remember the ins and outs when it came out but wasn't it basically his wife grassing him up out of spite? Even though she will get in trouble...
I would like an independent candidate of some stature to stand and wipe the floor with the main parties. They are all a waste of space and certainly need reminding that the electorate are not happy.
I would like an independent candidate of some stature to stand and wipe the floor with the main parties. They are all a waste of space and certainly need reminding that the electorate are not happy.
When you consider what we would hope to see from the people that we choose to represent us, and what we actually receive in practise, they are generally speaking an enormous disappointment. Unfortunately symptomatic of todays society.
Chris Huhne's ex-wife faces a retrial after a jury described by a judge as suffering "absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding" failed to reach a verdict in her case.
Vicky Pryce will stand trial again for perverting the course of justice as early as next week after the jury at Southwark Crown Court was discharged after saying it was "highly unlikely" it would reach even a majority verdict.
Mr Justice Sweeney said in 30 years he had never seen a situation like it after being presented with a list of 10 questions by the jury, after nearly 14 hours of deliberations.
They included: "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?"
Discussing a possible solution, the judge said: "Quite apart from my concern as to the absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding which the questions demonstrate, I wonder, given that it is actually all there and has been there the whole time, the extent to which anything said by me is going to be capable of getting them back on track again.
"In well over 30 years of criminal trial I have never come across this at this stage, never."
Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have "truly understood" or "sufficiently grasped" its task.
Mr Justice Sweeney gave the jury lengthy directions in a bid to answer their questions, but less than two hours later they said it was "highly unlikely" they would reach a verdict and were discharged.
Pryce, 60, of Crescent Grove, Clapham, south London, now faces a retrial, possibly as early as next week.
Huhne, who dramatically changed his plea to guilty on the first day of a joint trial with Pryce, resigning as an MP, will not be sentenced until the retrial is complete, the court heard. During the trial Pryce claimed a defence of marital coercion, claiming Huhne forced her to take speeding points for him nearly a decade ago, in 2003.
Regrettably at the moment we have no way of sorting out those in society not capable of following what was a fairly straightforward case in reality. It's all very well being "judged by ones peers", etc, but unfortunately not everyone is up to the job are they?
I know it's probably the best system we can realistic have but it's a bit annoying that yet again the taxpayer is left picking up a huge bill for the incompetence of a jury.
I did jury service about 9 months ago, and I can well believe the jury asked those sorts of ridiculous questions. In the trial I was on, somebody said "Shall we ask the judge if there was any evidence they missed out? Maybe there was some cctv footage they didn't show us."
It's possible that the judge made a balls up of directing the jury. E.g. Ideas like 'reasonable doubt' should be explained to the jurors. On the other hand perhaps he just got a bunch of turnips for a jury. I've done jury service and you do get to sit with all sorts.
always wanted to do jury service-----voice of reason and all that------------maybe they could see me leaping to my feet in the pre trial hearing shouting"hang the c++t" or something ? or walking in with a petrol can ? or if one of the others on the jury was a guardianista or a gooner FFS ---it all makes sense now!
It's possible that the judge made a balls up of directing the jury. E.g. Ideas like 'reasonable doubt' should be explained to the jurors. On the other hand perhaps he just got a bunch of turnips for a jury. I've done jury service and you do get to sit with all sorts.
Agreed. Done jury service twice now and there are some vast differences on the level of Common Sense and intelligence on show.
I did jury service about 9 months ago, and I can well believe the jury asked those sorts of ridiculous questions. In the trial I was on, somebody said "Shall we ask the judge if there was any evidence they missed out? Maybe there was some cctv footage they didn't show us."
I could have been clearer: there was no cctv footage in the evidence whatsoever.
It's possible that the judge made a balls up of directing the jury. E.g. Ideas like 'reasonable doubt' should be explained to the jurors. On the other hand perhaps he just got a bunch of turnips for a jury. I've done jury service and you do get to sit with all sorts.
Done it four times so far, including an 11 month trial. You get all sorts on there, but some of those questions beggar belief. Bet the judge was relieved at the outcome so far. In reality Lincs, probably one or two turnips.
A JURY yesterday asked a judge if it was the jury.
The trial of Chris Huhne’s ex-wife Vicky Pryce collapsed after the judge was handed a note from the jury saying, ‘when do you think the jury’s going to get here?’.
Mr Justice Sweeney sent a reply to the jury saying, ‘you are the jury’. Moments later he received another note from the jury saying, ‘are you sure?’.
The judge replied ‘yes’ prompting the jury to ask ‘so what exactly is that then?’.
Mr Justice Sweeney’s follow-up note asked, ‘what exactly is what?’. The jury’s follow-up note said, ‘a jury’.
In his next note the judge explained that the jury ‘listens to the evidence and decides whether this person is guilty or not’. The jury then replied, ‘what person?’.
Mr Justice Sweeney explained that it was ‘that woman in the dock. Ms Pryce. She’s been here every day for the last two weeks. As have you’.
The jury replied: “Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. Right. Could we start again?”
The judge then explained that ‘it doesn’t really work that way’.
The jury then said that ‘coming up with a verdict would be no problem at all, but it would have to be a wild guess’.
It's all too easy to slag of the jurors and it may well be true that not all are mensa material.
I thought that part of the role of a judge is to explain the relevant parts of the law and procedure in laymens' terms to jurors and others.
I've met some arrogant gits practising law and my guess is that this bloke didn't do his job properly and is covering his own botty by sneering at the jurors.
It's all too easy to slag of the jurors and it may well be true that not all are mensa material.
I thought that part of the role of a judge is to explain the relevant parts of the law and procedure in laymens' terms to jurors and others.
I've met some arrogant gits practising law and my guess is that this bloke didn't do his job properly and is covering his own botty by sneering at the jurors.
Could be wrong though.
Sorry but "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?" is just down to a jury of fuckwits.
2 observations of my own and I can easily see how this kind of situation unfolds.
1. Random jury selection nowadays on the basis of the electoral roll is a recipe for disaster. Of course I understand the concept but we had a woman on our jury who would struggle to get through ordering a Big Mac and fries in the Queen's without coming back with a Chinese takeaway. How she was expected to understand a Judge, 3 barristers and a load of witnesses for 4 and a half days I couldn't tell you. Every time she got back from session she had to basically have a summary of the last hour which of course meant she was hearing an interpretation of the evidence and arguments and not the primary and secondary evidence in its purest form. It's a good job we had a bit of CCTV or I reckon she would have been totally clueless.
2. Judges do not assume they are in about 75% of instances talking to people who do not have a clue and don't appreciate a jot of court process, basic legal terminology and concepts or to an extent common sense that can't be gleaned off of anything broadcast on Freeview after 8pm. We were in a complex case and the instructions/directions from the Judge were wholly inappropriate and unclear which resulted in us having to retire again halfway through giving the verdicts!
I think the combination of 1. and 2. is a recipe for disaster.
Comments
I don't think this is correct. I suspect that when he received the notice he nominated his wife and later told her what he had done, pressurising her to agree to accept the points (which she did.) Later she let others know the truth but of course couldn't come out and say so publicly without dobbing herself in it. The prosecution were going to run a very complicated argument in which they would, in effect, be able to use her account to others to prosecute him and then her. She didn't agree to change her account to support him but to demonstrate that he had 'forced' her to take his points.
I'm not a betting man but whereas I think he will get 'three hots and a cot' at public expense, I think her defence could well find favour with a jury.
As for Plebgate, how is it not possible to feel that Mitchell was stitched up by the police, Hayward, and number 10? Aided and abetted by the Sun, naturally. This one will run for some time yet.
The conservatives will probably win the by- election as many Lib. Dem voters who voted in the last election to keep the Tories out feel betrayed and will abstain, could be interesting if nutty Nigel of U.K.I.P. stood.
He said in a statement outside court today that the event happened over 10 years ago, almost as if it was it was not important.
The judge will not be impressed that Hume dragged the case on for so long and will send him to prison for at least one year.(I hope)
Maybe we should have a "Paragons of Virtue" clique.
the by-election to shake our miserable load of politician up!
I can't remember the ins and outs when it came out but wasn't it basically his wife grassing him up out of spite? Even though she will get in trouble...
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83325
Vicky Pryce will stand trial again for perverting the course of justice as early as next week after the jury at Southwark Crown Court was discharged after saying it was "highly unlikely" it would reach even a majority verdict.
Mr Justice Sweeney said in 30 years he had never seen a situation like it after being presented with a list of 10 questions by the jury, after nearly 14 hours of deliberations.
They included: "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?"
Discussing a possible solution, the judge said: "Quite apart from my concern as to the absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding which the questions demonstrate, I wonder, given that it is actually all there and has been there the whole time, the extent to which anything said by me is going to be capable of getting them back on track again.
"In well over 30 years of criminal trial I have never come across this at this stage, never."
Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have "truly understood" or "sufficiently grasped" its task.
Mr Justice Sweeney gave the jury lengthy directions in a bid to answer their questions, but less than two hours later they said it was "highly unlikely" they would reach a verdict and were discharged.
Pryce, 60, of Crescent Grove, Clapham, south London, now faces a retrial, possibly as early as next week.
Huhne, who dramatically changed his plea to guilty on the first day of a joint trial with Pryce, resigning as an MP, will not be sentenced until the retrial is complete, the court heard. During the trial Pryce claimed a defence of marital coercion, claiming Huhne forced her to take speeding points for him nearly a decade ago, in 2003.
I know it's probably the best system we can realistic have but it's a bit annoying that yet again the taxpayer is left picking up a huge bill for the incompetence of a jury.
In the trial I was on, somebody said "Shall we ask the judge if there was any evidence they missed out? Maybe there was some cctv footage they didn't show us."
In reality Lincs, probably one or two turnips.
first spell of jury service at Southwark Crown Court. Just not the Bermondsey area I'm afraid.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/are-we-the-jury-jury-asks-judge-2013022160487
A JURY yesterday asked a judge if it was the jury.
The trial of Chris Huhne’s ex-wife Vicky Pryce collapsed after the judge was handed a note from the jury saying, ‘when do you think the jury’s going to get here?’.
Mr Justice Sweeney sent a reply to the jury saying, ‘you are the jury’. Moments later he received another note from the jury saying, ‘are you sure?’.
The judge replied ‘yes’ prompting the jury to ask ‘so what exactly is that then?’.
Mr Justice Sweeney’s follow-up note asked, ‘what exactly is what?’. The jury’s follow-up note said, ‘a jury’.
In his next note the judge explained that the jury ‘listens to the evidence and decides whether this person is guilty or not’. The jury then replied, ‘what person?’.
Mr Justice Sweeney explained that it was ‘that woman in the dock. Ms Pryce. She’s been here every day for the last two weeks. As have you’.
The jury replied: “Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. Right. Could we start again?”
The judge then explained that ‘it doesn’t really work that way’.
The jury then said that ‘coming up with a verdict would be no problem at all, but it would have to be a wild guess’.
Mr Justice Sweeney said: “Look, just fuck off.”
I thought that part of the role of a judge is to explain the relevant parts of the law and procedure in laymens' terms to jurors and others.
I've met some arrogant gits practising law and my guess is that this bloke didn't do his job properly and is covering his own botty by sneering at the jurors.
Could be wrong though.
2 observations of my own and I can easily see how this kind of situation unfolds.
1. Random jury selection nowadays on the basis of the electoral roll is a recipe for disaster. Of course I understand the concept but we had a woman on our jury who would struggle to get through ordering a Big Mac and fries in the Queen's without coming back with a Chinese takeaway. How she was expected to understand a Judge, 3 barristers and a load of witnesses for 4 and a half days I couldn't tell you. Every time she got back from session she had to basically have a summary of the last hour which of course meant she was hearing an interpretation of the evidence and arguments and not the primary and secondary evidence in its purest form. It's a good job we had a bit of CCTV or I reckon she would have been totally clueless.
2. Judges do not assume they are in about 75% of instances talking to people who do not have a clue and don't appreciate a jot of court process, basic legal terminology and concepts or to an extent common sense that can't be gleaned off of anything broadcast on Freeview after 8pm. We were in a complex case and the instructions/directions from the Judge were wholly inappropriate and unclear which resulted in us having to retire again halfway through giving the verdicts!
I think the combination of 1. and 2. is a recipe for disaster.