Because of who he is and the high profile of it, they may put him straight on the VPU for his own safety, which houses all the wrong uns and nonces mostly, they do seperate other vunerable and high profile prisoners (ex OB for example) in these circumstances to keep the peace etc. Any other prisoner arriving is given the choice if they feel they cannot cope with normal prison wing life, he may not have been given the choice.
To be fair, how many people really even know who this bloke is? He's not really that famous like a Jeffrey Archer, he's well down the food chain.
They will know who he is, tv's and newspapers will have seen to that.
One thing your wrong about da9 is choice you cannot be put on the numbers without permission
Not in my day, had one of our own who worked in reception told me they regularly made decisions for people, based on crime committed and that persons perceived saftey on the wing.
How does he only get 8 months when Aitken gets 18?
I'm no fan of Aitken but it doesn't seem particularly fair that Huhne gets less than half his sentence for a similar level of deceit.
He'll only do 4 months. Derisory sentence.
I'm surprised Leonard. Thought you might be banging on about the poor persecuted motorist in this one.
I certainly think most speed cameras exist solely to extract money from poor unsuspecting motorists.
The scum Huhne supported them though and thus has been hoist by his own petard and should take the consequences.
I am also old fashioned enough to think that those, like Huhne, who seek to tell others how they should live and travel should adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional probity. If they do not then they should be published severely for that betrayal of trust.
I am also old fashioned enough to think that those, like Huhne, who seek to tell others how they should live and travel should adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional probity.
If they do not then they should be published severely for that betrayal of trust.
Just asked a mate you cannot be put on the numbers without you accepting it
Only speaking from experience and what I was told, was in there myself nearly 10 year ago, worked in and around the reception myself, and my pal worked there for 6 months.
Yes I know what your saying but I would say they would go up to huhne and tell him his going on the numbers probably get him to sign something and off he goes , but if you were to decline the offer they can't make you go
Magistrates now use an app to sentence in mags courts. There are various parameters they have to assess, such as disposable income, but once they key these things in the app tells them the appropriate sentence.
If Huhne's crime is perverting the course of justice (lying to the court). Why is it that everyone who lies in court, (if you plead not guilty and are found guilty, then by definition you have lied), are not additionally charged with this and an additional time added to their sentence ?
No doubt Legal will be along to correct me in due course, but I think you are assuming perjury is exactly the same as perverting the course of justice. It isn't entirely the same. Perjury has its own Act whereas perverting the course of justice is a common law offence. This is relevant from the SFO's guidance: "In most cases, perjury will often amount to perverting the course of justice. It is appropriate to charge with perjury if the perjury is the sole or principal act. If however it is part of a more significant series with the aim of perverting justice, perverting the course of justice will be the more appropriate charge. The charge of perverting the course of justice should not be brought simply to defeat the requirement for corroboration under s.13 PA 1911: Tsang Ping-Nam v The Queen [1981] 1 WLR 1462, PC."
I believe the former carries a max sentence of 7 years, the latter life.
Thanks for the question Covered End. Huhne was convicted of perverting the course of justice but this was for falsely stating that his wife was the driver. As he never gave evidence he did not perjure himself (which is telling porkies on oath.) I recollect that he has said the reason he pleaded guilty was precisely because he didn't want to perjure himself.
Now the second point is one I have come across before. Why not charge every person convicted after a not guilty plea with perjury. Well perjury requires corroboration (unlike most other offences) and in my view the simple fact that a jury has convicted does not provide corroboration (although there are some who take a different view.) There is also a pragmatic approach. If every such case resulted in a prosecution for perjury, the courts and prisons would be flooded with the consequences of ancillary prosecutions and our prison rate (already the highest in Europe) would start to challenge the worst in third world countries...eg America.
Just imagine the scenario. You plead not guilty to careless driving but are convicted. Next instance you are whanged up to the Crown Court, convicted of perjury and spend the next few months trying to avoid Huhne in the showers!! Mind you it would certainly reduce the numbers pleading not guilty.
CE please let me have your address so that I can send you my bill:-)
There is one thing ol' Geoff definitely has a talent for ... that is courting incredibly ugly women
'Geoff'? Chris
Certainly can't accuse him of leaving his wife for 'a bit of arm candy'. For fear of the libel laws I will not mention other stories I have heard about him..............
Comments
As I predicted, moved him to the VPU.
The scum Huhne supported them though and thus has been hoist by his own petard and should take the consequences.
I am also old fashioned enough to think that those, like Huhne, who seek to tell others how they should live and travel should adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional probity. If they do not then they should be published severely for that betrayal of trust.
If Huhne's crime is perverting the course of justice (lying to the court). Why is it that everyone who lies in court, (if you plead not guilty and are found guilty, then by definition you have lied), are not additionally charged with this and an additional time added to their sentence ?
This is relevant from the SFO's guidance:
"In most cases, perjury will often amount to perverting the course of justice. It is
appropriate to charge with perjury if the perjury is the sole or principal act. If
however it is part of a more significant series with the aim of perverting justice,
perverting the course of justice will be the more appropriate charge.
The charge of perverting the course of justice should not be brought simply to
defeat the requirement for corroboration under s.13 PA 1911: Tsang Ping-Nam v
The Queen [1981] 1 WLR 1462, PC."
I believe the former carries a max sentence of 7 years, the latter life.
Now the second point is one I have come across before. Why not charge every person convicted after a not guilty plea with perjury. Well perjury requires corroboration (unlike most other offences) and in my view the simple fact that a jury has convicted does not provide corroboration (although there are some who take a different view.) There is also a pragmatic approach. If every such case resulted in a prosecution for perjury, the courts and prisons would be flooded with the consequences of ancillary prosecutions and our prison rate (already the highest in Europe) would start to challenge the worst in third world countries...eg America.
Just imagine the scenario. You plead not guilty to careless driving but are convicted. Next instance you are whanged up to the Crown Court, convicted of perjury and spend the next few months trying to avoid Huhne in the showers!! Mind you it would certainly reduce the numbers pleading not guilty.
CE please let me have your address so that I can send you my bill:-)
'Geoff'? Chris
Certainly can't accuse him of leaving his wife for 'a bit of arm candy'. For fear of the libel laws I will not mention other stories I have heard about him..............