Huhne

[french frank]

Vicky Pryce's solicitors said on R4's Today that they were considering an appeal, again on the grounds that she was a victim of marital coercion.

In that case, hastily, before the appeal is launched:

1. The defence is out of date and should have been abolished.

2. But it wasn't abolished and can therefore still be legitimately invoked

BUT

3. When it was first established, the situation of women was quite different: if a marriage ended, a wife might be expected to have no job, possibly no career (or prospects), be left with children to bring up, face a very difficult time in many ways.

4. That is why the defence is open only to married women and not to men, who will normally have continuing job/career, a lesser responsibility for the children, though they be may equally or more upset at the prospect of a marriage breakdown.

5. Therefore, there should be no case of 'marital coercion' on the grounds that a wife is upset at the prospect of her marriage ending, since that aspect applies as much to men as to women; at the very least it would be against 'natural justice' to allow a woman to claim such grounds but not a man.

6. VP had both a job and a lucrative career, was in no way dependent financially on her husband, her children (from both marriages) were adult and no longer dependent on parents.

[Nick Armstrong]

In that case, hastily, before the appeal is launched:

You needn't worry about contempt of court before an appeal. It's only before and during a jury trial that it is a concern. Appeals are to Lords Justices (no lay jurors etc) - their Lordships are considered to be above anything the media might throw up by way of comment.

Let debate be unconfin'd ! :biggrin:

[french frank]

You needn't worry about contempt of court before an appeal. It's only before and during a jury trial that it is a concern. Appeals are to Lords Justices (no lay jurors etc) - their Lordships are considered to be above anything the media might throw up by way of comment.

Let debate be unconfin'd ! :biggrin:

Thanks, Rumpole. Just being over cautious. I should also add that one of Amsy's posts suggests that 'lawmakers' are allowed to be treated differently from ordinary mortals - a dangerous argument to follow up :smiley:

[ahinton]

Well, if we're going to be pedantic about it.... I didn't write it; I typed it. :winkeye:

I wasn't going to be, as it happens, but you are quite correct, of course!

[Anna]

3. When it was first established, the situation of women was quite different: if a marriage ended, a wife might be expected to have no job, possibly no career (or prospects), be left with children to bring up, face a very difficult time in many ways.
4. That is why the defence is open only to married women and not to men, who will normally have continuing job/career, a lesser responsibility for the children, though they be may equally or more upset at the prospect of a marriage breakdown.
5. Therefore, there should be no case of 'marital coercion' on the grounds that a wife is upset at the prospect of her marriage ending, since that aspect applies as much to men as to women; at the very least it would be against 'natural justice' to allow a woman to claim such grounds but not a man.
6. VP had both a job and a lucrative career, was in no way dependent financially on her husband, her children (from both marriages) were adult and no longer dependent on parents.

Pryce's Solicitor, Robert Brown, according to the report in The Telegraph, said on Today this morning:-

"If we abolish this defence of marital coercion, where does it leave these women?"

He added: "I think that more careful consideration could have been given to whether she [Pryce] should have been treated as a defendant or whether, in light of a lot of the evidence, she should have been considered as a victim or witness."

In apparent support of the suggestion that Pryce, 60, was a victim, Brown pointed out that government policy on domestic violence did not limit the definition to physical violence. "In the modern era women are still vulnerable in many situations," he said

So he evidently thinks marital coercion is not out of date as a defence for married women.

[Sir Velo]

So he evidently thinks marital coercionn is not out of date as a defence for married women.

Some might say he has a vested interest in saying that. :winkeye:

[BBMmk2]

A colleague of mine was saying today that thye prisonn sentance of huhne, should have been better served with communtiy service, with someone of this staure, would this not be more humiliating? Saves us tax payer for keeping him and hius wife!!(Or be cheaper).

[Anna]

Some might say he has a vested interest in saying that. :winkeye:

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment! :laugh:

[french frank]

So he evidently thinks marital coercionn is not out of date as a defence for married women.

That's her solicitor's view?

"In the modern era women are still vulnerable in many situations,"

But I think it would need to be made clear in what ways (in any particular case) a women was so vulnerable that she chose to break the law. And men can be victims of domestic violence too. So amend the law or abolish it (especially since it doesn't apply to women who cohabit, only those who are married). But most of all, in each case the coercive reason needs to be explained, rather than simply saying 'because she was married to him'.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

pretty much agree with this except his view that we have relished the spectacle out of frustration at being unable to call to account our politicians etc .... he is far too kind to us, we relish the misfortune of the Huhne family - its loss of any jobs, loss of love, loss of trust and loss of reputation by gaoling them and then shouting encouragement for the low life bullies inside who also consider them insufficiently punished .... should they be flogged/stoned/lashed/what? ...

it may be Huhne's greater crime that he exposes our barbarity to us, makes us feel it, so punish him more eh ....

he was a progressive politician, he fought the good fight for liberal and green values .... his character is far more acceptable than the greater majority of current MP's; practically none of whom are free from the taint of theft and fraud ....... and quite a few who should be inside as well ....

am i correct in recalling that this is all in the public domain because a relationship ended badly?

[Anna]

But I think it would need to be made clear in what ways (in any particular case) a women was so vulnerable that she chose to break the law. And men can be victims of domestic violence too. So amend the law or abolish it (especially since it doesn't apply to women who cohabit, only those who are married). But most of all, in each case the coercive reason needs to be explained, rather than simply saying 'because she was married to him'.

Quite agree frenchie that this law should be abolished or amended so as not only applying to a wife. It was used, unsuccessfully, in the case of the missing canoe couple's insurance scam. However, it succeeded in the 2000 case of Ashley Fitton, who escaped a drinking and driving offence after telling a court her irate husband had ordered her to get behind the wheel following a boozy meal at a restaurant.

She told the court she had refused repeatedly but as his wife had been scared of what he [her husband] would have done if she had continued to refuse to drive. When stopped by the police she was three times over the limit.

I must say she had one clever lawyer to get her off that charge! (Whether or not her husband was in the habit of being violent towards her I have no idea, nor whether a plea of duress would have sufficed?)

Edit: I shouldn't laugh, but: Chris Huhne's lover, Ms Trimingham, paid him a visit today and parked her Toyota Prius in a Permit Holders Only bay outside Wandsworth Prison, in south London, and was issued with a parking ticket as she spent several hours inside.

She now faces a fine of up to £110, although it will be halved if she chooses to admit the offence and pay up straight away. :biggrin:

[amateur51]

Thanks, Rumpole. Just being over cautious. I should also add that one of Amsy's posts suggests that 'lawmakers' are allowed to be treated differently from ordinary mortals - a dangerous argument to follow up :smiley:

Well if law-makers expect to be treated as sonmeone special when the going is good (and many of them do) then they must expect that the public may wish to give vent to its collective glee when things go awry, especially when the law-maker is going down. It happened to Archer and Aitken, so why not Huhne. That's all. :smiley:

[Serial_Apologist]

Well if law-makers expect to be treated as sonmeone special when the going is good (and many of them do) then they must expect that the public may wish to give vent to its collective glee when things go awry, especially when the law-maker is going down. It happened to Archer and Aitken, so why not Huhne. That's all. :smiley:

:ok: Ams

While generally concurring with Jenkins's article about substitutionism, I don't however quite share Calum's downbeat view of human nature.

There again, of course, I only have myself to go on...

<sanctimonious emoticon>

[french frank]

:ok: Ams

While generally concurring with Jenkins's article about substitutionism, I don't however quite share Calum's downbeat view of human nature.

There again, of course, I only have myself to go on...

<sanctimonious emoticon>

I don't agree in that I don't think 'lawmakers' seriously expect to be treated differently when it comes to matters of the law, however blasé some of them appear to be at times. I didn't take pabmusic's earlier response as 'tongue-in-cheek', at any rate I completely agreed with it prima facie, though he may disabuse me :smiley:

[amateur51]

I don't agree in that I don't think 'lawmakers' seriously expect to be treated differently when it comes to matters of the law, however blasé some of them appear to be at times. I didn't take pabmusic's earlier response as 'tongue-in-cheek', at any rate I completely agreed with it prima facie, though he may disabuse me :smiley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U :winkeye: