Today In Court: Huhne ‘Badgered’ Pryce to Take Points
All the evidence has now been heard in Vicky Pryce’s trial, closing speeches will be presented to the jury tomorrow. Today Pryce’s eldest daughter Georgia Beesley took to the stand, alleging that Chris Huhne coerced his ex-wife into taking his points:
“I remember speaking to my mother and she told me that Chris had been caught speeding and was asking her to take speeding points. If he had taken the points he would have lost his licence. He was very insistent that she take the points for him. He would say to her that if she didn’t take them he would not be able to drive, that he would lose his licence, and that it would be her fault if he didn’t get elected. I did not appreciate at that time what it would be like to be living with someone constantly badgering you to do something that you know was wrong and feeling like you don’t have a choice.”
Pryce’s lawyer went on to read out a character reference from none other than ex-MI6 boss Sir John Scarlett, he of dodgy dossier fame. The case will conclude tomorrow…
Mashed potato.
Poor wee thing.
That beastly man forcing his will upon a weak, defenceless woman.
The daughter’s evidence is hearsay, surely?
I agree about the hearsay.
And is there no cross examination of these witnesses by the Crown?
Belsay Northumberland?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good fairy tale.
“Admission against penal interest,” i.e., Vicky as much as admits she’s going to have to take the rap, which act is unlawful as a perversion of justice (defrauding the Court). Sure, Vicky’s trying to play it down by saying it’s not as though it’s a voluntary thing on her part and that Huhne bullied her into it, but she’s telling the kid in effect, if I take the points (which later happened– at least the facts are the points were assessed against her and not Chris), you’ll know why. Admissions against penal interest are outside the hearsay rule, and someone can always testify that they heard someone else try to explain why they did something which could (or did) expose them to criminal liability.
Simple rule is that what an accused says is not hearsay. And she is a co-accused.
What an accused person says isn’t hearsay.
It is technically still hearsay, but nevertheless admissible as an exception to the rule.
And fuck me if the daughter isn’t just as fucking hideous as the two-bagger bubble.
It is factual evidence that the daughter heard her mother complain of being pressured at the time (to prove it was not recent fabrication, made up after the event) but hearsay as to the terms of the pressure being exerted.
This is bread and butter work for a criminal judge – the judge will give careful directions to the jury to avoid grounds for appeal.
Where’s Judge Judy when you need her?
If Ms Pryce is found “not guilty”, I suspect there will be many other ex-spouses of well known personalities coming forward……
It will be Jimmy Savillllle all over again
If John Scarlet gave her a reference then she must be in trouble.
That man should himself be in court for fraud and lying.
Unfortunately he cannot be prosecuted for incompetency as almost all Westminster would be there.
His name is Bird not Burt
Bloody hell first glance at the headline and I read Huhne “Buggered” Pryce to take points
“I did not appreciate at that time what it would be like to have someone constantly badgering you to do something that you know was wrong and feeling like you don’t have a choice.”
Perfectly describes my relationship with the EU.
LOL.
+1000000000
He badgered me whilst he rogered Carina.
Excuse me. I do the rogering.
Don’t talk with your mouth full.
Shampers on Vicky tomorrow night if the jury accept her plea ?
http://www.sbe.co.uk/SBENews/tabid/80/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/305/February-News.aspx
Just read this and thought of our illustrious submarine commander Gideon the Brave.
Here is a list of stuff you need to have to be some sort of economist that advises industry, governments etc.
Gideon has a degree in modern history. Is that the modern history of towel folding at selfridges?
http://www.sbe.co.uk/Careers/tabid/62/Default.aspx
Dive Dive Dive
Disgusting bully.
Laws, Hitchcock, Huhne, – all following a tradition of crooks thieves & perverts in the anti liberal undemocratic party.
Did Laws ever pay back that £40,000 he stole from the taxpayer to give to his boyfriend?
David Laws MP, Gayer and thief has not repaid any monies, however, he does have a clean driving license.
SO THATS OK THEN
What about Jowell’s 350K from B-for-Berlusconi? Is there an “official” Jowell explanation? Why is she never asked now it’s no longer sub judice?
Its called money laundering
Ah, the smell of hypocrisy. The three jailed UKIP MEPs is a far more impressive % score and the smell of Monday Club Tories around the Elm Guest House redefines disgusting. Not an excuse for those you name – but a proper perspective. I cannot be bothered to list the Labour crims; it would take too long just for the Venal Vaz rap sheet.
He needed the car to take Carina to rugby practice.
No, that would have been my mum, Caroline Spelman MP, former Minister for Badger Culls, and me. Do keep up with your scandals. I realise the “badger” in the header may have thrown you off.
Badgers? Did someone say badgers?
Ask me if I give a shit.
LOL.
The Honey badger. My bloody hero
Send them both down
So they all knew what was going on, the whole family was in on the contempt of court.
Huhne rogered Pryce to take the piss.
(out of us all)
Should have gone to specsavers.
It looks increasingly like Pryce is going to beat the rap if she does it will be a travesty.
Why? Huhne committed the speeding offence. Huhne told lies while he was a Cabinet Minister. He bears 99% of the responsibility. Send the fucker down for the maximum stretch, Your Honour.
I don’t think cross dressing came into it.
Was there no cross-examination by the Crown?
It seems as if these statements have gone unchallenged.
And I would have thought the daughter’s evidence is hearsay, “she told me …” etc
+1 Belsay.
Too right .
Thank you very much Mrs Beasley you do not need to stay in Court .
Admissions against interest are admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay.
You jizzmops know nowt about criminal fucking law, so don’t try and be fucking clever.
More Abbott bloating……
I have this vision of Abbott and Pickles on a blind date at an eat all you like restaurant…….
Don’t forget me.
Did you hear my twitter quoted on BBC this afternoon when I advised the Sun that not only page 3 should be discontinued but the rest of the pages 1and 1 and 4 to 47?
I should be on the stage as a stand down comic, me.
Better to be a-gloating than a-donating, lard lady.
To be fair, that was Tony Bliar’s lowest moment ever, I believe. Promising the rebate was safe, then handing it over for a promise of President of EU, only for the frogs to renege and laugh at him, because of course he couldn’t tell anyone! I would find it funny, except he gave away taxpayers money and now he avoids paying tax in the UK!!
Blair would have only become President over my dead body.
And it did not happen.
I sussed him out from day one. No wonder, Germany has the highest average IQ in Europe at 107. Britain is down to 100 which is why they believed his promises for 10 years, and then let a phsychotic lead them.
She’d rather we were paying more?
Obviously. And to my mind it seems only logical that if Blair agreed to changes to the rebate (as also therefore must the rest of the EU members) then if one side reneges, it is incumbent on the other to do likewise. So just deduct what should rightfully be ours from our annual contributions.
Simple – and WTF would/could they do about it???
Cameron no-balls has to go – and preferably by the end of the month. Two leaders’ resignations in 4 weeks. Great!
Can anyone explain why (1) Huhne was not called by the prosecution and (2) this hearsay evidence was allowed? I’m not suggesting the prosecution is not trying very hard but it is puzzling to a mere layman…
Is it because Chris Huhne tends to lie in Court ??
It is not at all puzzling that the evidence was allowed. There are umpteen exceptions to the rules excluding hearsay evidence. The most obvious ones which may apply here (and I have no idea of the specific reasoning applied by the court) are; the court can admit hearsay evidence if it believes it is in the interests of justice (subject to some conditions) and; there are specific exceptions to the hearsay rule in cases of confession by a co-accused in a trial, and these may apply in this case.
Interesting, although I wonder what directions the jury will be given about the weight to be given to the evidence. Do you have any idea why Huhne was not called?
I tend to suspect the Crown may think that Pryce does not have a good defence as a matter of law, even without contesting the defence’s evidence (on the basis – I do not know if this is right or wrong – that marital nagging is not enough to constitute “coercion”).
Calamity Clegg: this would be like the “prisoner’s dilemma! “You have heard Mr Huhne deny that he pressurised Ms Pryce. Members of the jury, only one conclusion can be drawn from that…”.
She’s one of the accused – what an accused says is not hearsay.
But this hearsay came from her daughter, not from Pryce, so does that rule apply here?
Evidence from someone who spoke to the accused, about what the accused said, is not hearsay.
Otherwise cops wouldn’t be able to give evidence of the contents of police interviews with the accused.
Fucking aye right.
Most of these bellends spouting on here know fuck all about the rules of evidence or strategy in criminal trials.
Let the ugly bubble spout all she fucking likes; she’s as guilty as fucking Crippen. Having said that the fucking dozy fucking dole claimants and mouth-breathers on the jury will probably find some sort of fucking spurious reason to acquit that dog-faced bastard.
Very puzzling indeed.
Now wait for the flood of ex-wives coming out. The AA says 300,000 people have swapped points.
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/news/points-swapping.html
Mr Huhne not called as he’s pled guilty and is effectively removed from the game at that point. Always a bit tricky using an accused (or guilty party) as a Crown witness.
Anyway, she’s running a defence for which the burden of proof is on her (balance of probabilities).
Why hasn’t Judge Donny Brasco been called either?
Or Donny Darko ?
Wrong.
He could have been called, but it would have backfired, as the defence silk would have torn him a new one in cross-examination to back up the Greek-with-a-face-like-a-smashed-crab’s preposterous fucking story. I’d rather he underwent that process in a fucking cell
You ran a trial or two have you?
As it happens, yes.
Foxes in bedrooms
Badgers in courts
Horse-meat in fish-fingers ( give it time )
Huhne in prison
Death in the NHS
Cameron in bed with gays
Events dear boy events
A new day has dawned, has it not?
It was a new day yesterday but it’s an old day now (Jethro Tull).
You pre-empted me by about 30 seconds, are you a mind reader or what?.
A few of these are my favourite things.
Badgers, Foxes and Horses, I just do not know what the World is coming to, What do you think Mr Toad?.
I think Mr Toad should be very careful what he bites. I smell another Bonkers Johnson crusade to draw attention from his pitiful failure as a Mayor……..
I would be wary of a character reference from that guy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8499137/Sir-John-Scarlett-MI6-has-no-room-for-mavericks.html
Possibly corrupted as part of EU ‘black’ intelligence op ?
I do not think a personal character reference from an individual who was not present at the time can reasonably be relied upon if the defence is that the act was done under coercion.
The statement is irrelevant to the charge. It is mitigation at best.
He was the original Scarlett Pimple, so I’ve read…
What do points make? Pryces.
Was he really worried about Greece joining the Euro, or was this home life getting him down ? Enjoy some classic Paxo.
What a real arsehole. Huhne redefines Hoon…
My blank piece of paper is still blank and will stay that way as long as I can get away with it. My policy is simply to jump on bandwagons and let Dave hand the election to me on a plate.
A bad thtart to the day ath I awoke to find that my hot water buttle had burtht during the night. Then I remembered I don’t have a hot water bottle.
Bottle of champagne and caviar on toatht for breakfatht, then off to work, cleaning Ed Ballth’ footwear. Unfortunately, I don’t have any tan polith tho had to make do with black, and it made a bit of a meth. I’m thure to get roathted when Ed findth out.
Came home and loaded up Jetpac on my Thpeccy. It’th on the old Thony C90 with Jungle Trouble and Knight Lore. My neanderthal brother hath hacked the game tho it readth “ED THE RETARD” on the thcreen when it’th loading. I with I knew how to do that.
The jury needs to judge whether there was spousal coercion? I thought the jury needed to judge whether she illegally accepted someone else’s points. GUILTY.
Calm down dear. This is why you rely on the carers rather than sit on the bench.
She’s admitting she did accept the points – under (marital) coercion, the latter if accepted by the jury being a complete defence.
I hope she gets off, so as to rub that wanker’s nose in it.
Agreed.
No, she is not so simple, and listening to the tapes of their telephone conversations she gives as good if not better than he does.
She is guilty and her defence is weak; but she will get a light sentence and probation. Her employers will worry though, as they should.
Criminal Justice Act 1925
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86
47 Abolition of presumption of coercion of married woman by husband.
Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/2013126.pdf
5
(2) The following expressions have the meanings given—
(a) “husband” includes a man who is married to another man;
(b) “wife” includes a woman who is married to another woman;
(c) “widower” includes a man whose marriage to another man ended
with the other man’s death;
The Criminal Justice Act 1925 Section 47 is being used right now by Vicky Price in her defence
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624
This defence will apply to both parties of a lesbian marriage – but neither party of a gay marriage.
According to the AA 300,000 people have swapped points with loving wives or hard pressed students for cash. On that basis which other cabinet members or indeed members of the jury have switched points?
+ lots. I love the idea that it takes a blog to identify a fundamental drafting error in a major piece of legislation.
Is this the Defence’s best point ?
It is the defence’s only point
Strange that a bloke cannot claim marital coercion by a wife but a lesbian can.
That’s Equality, Folks!
‘Pryce’s lawyer went on to read out a character reference from none other than ex-MI6 boss Sir John Scarlett, he of dodgy dossier fame.’
Once again, reality trumps satire.
Interesting jury composition given the crux of the case is marital coercion:
“The jury of eight women and four men … ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624
The breakdown of the jury into single, married, separated, divorced or in civil partnerships would be interesting.
Is the leader of a jury male or female?
“Mr MacShane has been married twice and has four children. It is understood he is currently in a relationship with Vicky Pryce, the ex-wife of Chris Huhne, the former Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9653224/MPs-expenses-Police-take-first-step-towards-charges-against-Denis-MacShane.html
Now the Westminster village is agog at her new relationship with MacShane. Why would someone who said in a recent interview that “politics takes away your integrity … people lie to get what they want” decide that her new man would be someone who has been proved to have forged invoices and to have lied about his expenses claims?
The new couple have known each other for years, having met regularly at the Davos economic summit in Switzerland and other European conferences. Their relationship is thought to have blossomed in February, when MacShane was one of the star guests at Pryce’s traditional post-Davos party — the first to be thrown at the former marital home since her divorce.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/that-ol-macshane-magic-8293826.html
So much for her wanting to take the moral high ground.
Strange that her relationship with an expenses fiddler hasn’t come up in cross examination. Why didn’t she rat on MacShane? Did either of them fiddle expenses or tax returns related to their Davos visits?
Is she keeping a diary on MacShane (expenses, speeding, recycling bins, tax returns …) just in case she needs another day in court?
Who needs Hollywood when we have the real thing?
in #96 I should have written
Is the leader of the (not a) jury male or female?