February 20th, 2013

BREAKING: Pryce Jury Discharged

Not only could the jury not understand the English language,  they also failed to reach a verdict.

Over to the CPS to decide if they want a retrial…

UPDATE: Vicky Pryce will face retrial next Monday. Unlikely now that Huhne will be sentenced before the by-election. Big blow for the Tories.


  1. 1
    ████ ' changed my tune ' Hoon says:



    • 16
      Not really a great surprise, is it? says:

      Yep, she can continue as working a male-impersonator.


    • 22
      Bingo says:

      what would you risk for love?

      Looking for love or want to help protect someone who is? Then it’s worth knowing that a recent study by Leicester University revealed that approximately 230,000 Britons may have fallen victim of an online dating scam.

      Typically, criminals will initiate a relationship through an online dating site, often creating a glamorous persona – film star looks, grand titles and high flying jobs. Once they have gained their victim’s trust they will create reasons to request large sums of money – perhaps to visit them or to pay hospital bills.

      You can find love safely by looking out for the following potential tell-tale signs:

      – Your new love looks like a super model but always finds excuses not to meet
      – They ask lots of questions about you but reveal nothing about themselves – allowing them to use your information to apply for credit in the future
      – They rarely use your name, usually calling you by a pet name
      – Finally, perhaps the biggest giveaway – they promise you great wealth in the future but in the meantime ask you to send them large sums of money or request your card details to clear a one off debt


    • 39
      pissed off voter says:

      12 individuals cannot agree a decision in a week so how long will it take the 27 countries of the EU to agree a decision?


      • 60
        hold them to ac says:

        It depends on whether you have Merkel and Cameron threatening to withdraw all of your “regional funding” in the debate, that usually produces a few signed dots on the line. While of course safeguarding the administrative largesse, oh the pate is so delicious!!!


  2. 2
    V1le, spiteful Labour ruined my Country says:

    what does this mean now?


    • 3
      Owin Jones,Crime Correspondent says:

      Re-Trial,with a new jury ?


      • 154
        Medea says:

        The Prosecution was dumb – EIGHT women on the jury.
        The Law is an ass – the marital coercion defence can only be used by women. What century, and what planet, does that come from?


        • 159
          Sid the pocket snake says:

          This jury appear to be as thick as pig poo. I fear for all of us if this is they type of thickos who are on juries now. One time they had a level of understanding, but this lot. Wow, words fail me and it question whether we should stop jury trials all together.


    • 9
      Tooth fairy says:

      Huhne to be imprisoned, Pryce to go free. Waste of public money prosecuting the poor wretched woman. Huhne is the one that destroyed his family.


      • 95
        filipinomonkey says:

        Maybe, but she was complicit in the action and to discourage others from doing the same a little time at Her Majesty’s pleasure might up the ante somewhat.


      • 109
        Dreadful woman says:

        Let’s not forget she left Mr Pryce for Huhne.

        What goes around…


        • 133
          The savant 10.4 highway patrol says:

          What sort of woman goes around using the Pryce surname of her first husband whilst having divorced both. Pryce and. Huhne .

          Why not just call. Herself by her. Hellenic maiden name and show a modicum of transparency .


      • 155
        Solomon says:

        The MPs who stole from the taxpayers, lied to their constituents, while legislating against “benefit fraud”, should be the ones going to jail.


      • 171

        Gosh! if nothing else she needs locking up for abusing my eyes
        How can you get so much ugliness on just one face?
        How thick can a Jury be. Bring back 12 good men and true is what i say!!!


    • 11
      Mike Hunt says:

      We pay for the failed trial one assumes.


      • 93
        Spank Sinatra says:

        Of course not – the money fairy picks up the bill. Are you new here?


        • 98
          Captain Gordo says:

          Don’t tell them about the money tree Pike!


        • 137
          The savant 10.4 highway patrol says:

          Well. Yes he is new .

          He just landed from. Bucarest indoctrinated with the creed that in. Blighty no body pays for anything least of all the East. European. Diaspora.


      • 178
        One Eye says:

        And SHE pays again for her defense the wicked spiteful woman (playing the feminist marital coercion card)


    • 13
      John Wilkes says:

      It means that Huhne probably won’t be sentenced until CPS decide and then possibly only after a re-trial – certainly not before the Eastleigh by-election


      • 72
        Blowing Whistles says:

        See below no 63 – he should be in prison on remand.


      • 145
        Sylvio says:

        er – so he didn’t really have to resign at all!

        What a waste. A fine MP, always noted for his consistent adherence to policy and an example to us all.

        I am assuming that the Guido rabble are suitably ashamed of their rapscallion behavour.


    • 83
      Philip Schofield says:

      Well, I’ve done some research…


  3. 4
    lescrompsblogg says:

    No surprise there then !


    • 177
      Soap Opera says:

      Casting for the movie version:

      Chris Huhne ………..Stephen Fry
      Trimingham………….Rupert Everett
      Vicky Pryce………….Sophie Grabhol


  4. 5
    When I was a lad I served a term as office boy to an attorney's firm... says:

    The evidence is usually better the second time around.


  5. 6
    Not really a great surprise, is it? says:

    Q10. “Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

    Answer: “This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did. Answering this question will not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case. I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case.”


    • 29
      SP4BS says:

      I’d have thought its a real issue.
      To say whether her defense isn’t ridiculous.
      Perhaps if a crazed god squadder(*) wouldn’t be allowed to blame law breaking on her hubby, then nobody would.

      (*) sorry to god believers here. But would God get annoyed if a wife didn’t take her husbands points?


      • 81
        Anonymous says:

        Allah might.


      • 110
        Dreadful woman says:

        Thou shalt not bear false witness. Commandment number 8.

        God is not over impressed with those who fabricate evidence, nor those whose arrogance causes them to think that they are above the law.


      • 141
        The savant 10.4 highway patrol says:

        Mary. And. Joseph were going. From. Nazareth to. Bethlehem on their nanny goat and. Cart ….

        Joseph was driving too fast and the. Herodian speed camera zapped. Him. ….

        Look. Mary, he said , you’ve already. Disobeyed me by getting up the duff from this. Holy. Ghost. Fellah ..

        The least you can now do…..etc


    • 82
      Anon E Mouse says:

      Do you have the answers to the other 9 questions ?


      • 108
        Anonymous says:

        They are now on |the BBC Website. All good questions – and a condemnation of the current judicial system in the way it rations the evidence the Jury is allowed to hear. I suspect they (apparently 8 women and 4 men) would have done a better job of cross-examining Mrs Huhne to find out whether she was willing to take the points at the time and only changed her mind after he said he was leaving.


        • 112
          Anonymous says:

          All good questions?


          5. 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?

          How on earth is that a reasonable question?
          The basic premise of a fair trail is that the jury only decide the case on the evidence that has been tested in court.

          The jury must be thick as two short planks to keep on speculating and not understanding the judge. Personally I’d have answered them something like “DECIDE THE CASE ON THE EVIDENCE, YOU XXXXXXING MORONS!”


          • Mong-hater says:

            The questions merely symbolise the mong-like levels of intelligence among the British public.


          • Mae bys Marianne wedi brifo says:

            Just look at this fucking Nazi untermensch and his comment below. He ought to be gassed.


          • Anonymous says:

            The judge’s definition of reasonable doubt may clarify, by implication, what is and is not a reasonable question.

            Here’s another, can the jury bring a contempt charge against the court and the crown prosecution for having wasted its time?


          • Mae bys Marianne wedi brifo says:

            Sorry I mean the fucking Nazi disablist twat above.


      • 142
        The savant 10.4 highway patrol says:

        Yes but they’re sub judice.

        In other words m’ lord is sitting on them and will probably use them as toilet paper when he declares the next relief adjournment


  6. 7
    B wing on tenterhooks says:

    Is Chris on his wya? Coooeee Chris!


  7. 8
    Carina says:

    Bugger, it’ll be ages now before Chris goes away and I can get back to my yummy mummy.


  8. 10
    Anonymous says:

    Does that affect any punishment Huhne may or may not receive ? Surely not ?


  9. 12
    Kebab Time says:

    What would have happened then if Chris Huhne had not changed his plea then?


    • 27
      Lord Mandelbum of Fondleboys says:

      He’d have been found guilty, based on the evidence subsequently published. The issue in Pryce’s case isn’t didmshe do it – she admits that – the issue is, did he ‘force’ her to do it. He’s guilty either way.


  10. 14
    Big Dave from B Wing says:

    I’ve got my make up on and I’m all ready for Mr Huhne’s arrival.


  11. 15
    Laura Norder says:

    The state should not be allowed another go at Vicky Pryce.


    • 21
      Plato says:

      She’s admitted perverting the course of justice?


      • 26
        Shocked of Sheen says:

        Don’t think so, she pleaded Not Guilty did’nt she?


        • 41
          Plato says:

          She admitted taking the points for Huhne but offfered the defence of marital coercion. If that isn’t accepted, then she’s guilty of perverting the course of justice.


    • 24
      Pryce Watch says:

      Why not ?

      Even though double jeopardy no longer applies since 2003, she has not been acquitted.

      This is a mistrial.

      Up to the prosecution to determine if evidence warrants a retrial.


      • 34
        SP4BS says:

        Its a ridiculous, expensive, side show.
        I bet nobody has EVER been done for taking speeding points before.


        • 48
          Anonymous says:

          WTF. It’s not for taking speeding points, it’s for perverting justice.


          • SP4BS says:

            silly. it is for taking speeding points.

            (I shall leave it there but I’m trolling)


          • The tit in no. 10 says:

            Can’t understand all the fuss.
            The LibLabCon plunderbund perverts the course of justice every day and we don’t get put away.


          • Anonymous says:

            This whole saga would not have happened if the police did their job properly.

            They should only be allowed to prosecute motorists they have stopped at or immediately after the commission of a moving traffic offence.

            This trial proves that the present arrangements are open to serious abuse.


          • Anonymous says:

            Can justice be perverted much more than it already is?


          • Chris Huhne says:

            Pervert, did you say?


  12. 17
    john@loggerheads says:

    Well, what a surprise!


  13. 18
    SP4BS says:

    It’ll all be over by christmas.


  14. 19
    50 Calibre says:

    No surprise there then…


  15. 20
    Pryce Watch says:

    Not surprised. There should be retrial.


  16. 23
    50 Calibre says:

    Any other jury would probably do the same. The CPS might care to remember that definition of insanity along the lines of repeating something that doesn’t work is basically daft…


    • 44
      Carter Fuck says:

      Q5. 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?

      I’d hope no other jury contains people stupid enough to ask that question!


  17. 25
    Check Facts First says:

    If I was Chris Huhne I would try a punt at changing my plea. One never knows what a jury will do next – obviously.


    • 37
      Legal Eagle says:

      This could have interesting impact on any future appeals.

      The law commission may want to start investigating to find out if the recent mass immigration of non-fluent English speakers has in fact undermined the jury system. That question about reasonable doubt does raise reasonable doubts.


    • 102
      The real Casual Observer says:

      Once upon a time you could expect a jury to deliver a sensible verdict based on what they had heard and seen in court, but clearly that is no longer the case based on some of this jury’s questions.

      Perhaps it’s time to redefine the acceptance criteria for jury members. The existing ones don’t seem to work very well…


  18. 30
    Admiral Ackbar says:

    Come on Mr Huhne, show some balls and top yourself.


  19. 31
    Pryce Watch says:

    Thank god for the retrial. Her costs are going to really go through the roof now.


  20. 32
    Gonk III says:

    Tell you someone else who can’t understand basic English, and speaks in a pretty mangled sort of way as well. Clue, eats pies and used to serve drinks.


  21. 33
    john mackie says:

    So Chris Huhne’s agony continues night after night as Mistress Carina gets to assault his arsehole with a big black strapon. Trust me, he’s desperate to be put away ASAP


  22. 35
    Pawn Sandwich says:

    Ha ha. 4G auction raises £2.3billion. Gordon’s 3G auction raised £23billion. Shows what a brilliant man he was.


    • 43

      He is my hero sandwich


      • 59
        Jimmy says:

        So the exchange rate is 1 Gordon = 10 Gideons?

        A little generous do Gideon there.


        • 70

          At Capitalists@work we had a poll last week.

          Who was the better chancellor? Darling or Osborne.
          Darling won by around 30%.

          I think a Gordon vs George would probably see a decisive George win.
          Not sure Gordon could beat anyone, except maybe Dennis Healey, or the Churchill interwar disaster chancellorship.


        • 96
          Old Blue Eyes says:

          That Gordon got such a large windfall just adds to the measure of his incompetence that he ended up getting the country in such a terrible economic mess.


    • 67
      Captn P says:

      Its only a ha ha if you don’t own a mobile phone, if you did at the time who do you think paid for the 23BN? Hope you enjoyed your phone tax.

      The reason he only raised 2.3BN is the mobile phone companies know its not worth it.


  23. 36
    Jim Devine's shelves says:

    From BBC News:- “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?”
    Where did the jury come from? F*cking hell, is this the standard of people in Britain today?


  24. 38

    The 10 questions to the judge

    1. What is a trial?
    2. If someone is a bit of a minger, do they get a free pass?
    3. Can we have a TV in here, its well boring, innit.
    4. Why do you have a wig,wiggy?
    5. What’s for tea?
    6. Is it Ok to invent stuff in your own head and use that as evidence?
    7. If i vote her guilty, will I still get the money she promised me for voting her not guilty?
    8. What comes after 8?
    14. Can we go home now please. Some of these jurors are thicker than an EU directive on onion provision.
    189. Can I text in my answer but also put it on facebook?


    • 47
      Plato says:

      To be fair, most of the real questions weren’t un-reasonable.


      • 69
        British Standard Juror says:

        When I did my jury service lots of us sat around waiting to be called, reading books. Some people didn’t read books but just sat there. I was told that this was because they couldn’t read.


        • 77
          NE Frontiersman says:

          On my jury we put our heads together and asked the questions the thick prosecution hadn’t come up with, and nailed a rather sleazy character. The jury experience is as good as you make it. The jury is supreme, but all other agents in court don’t want you to know that.


    • 103
      Anonymous says:

      That about sums it up. Where the f*ck do they find these people? Oh, England.


  25. 40
    ████ ' changed my tune ' Hoon says:

    I might just stand as an independent in my old Constituency of Eastleigh now.


  26. 41
    No legal beagle says:

    Can someone advise whether there is now any restriction on reporting or commenting on the evidence and jury questions raised in the first trial? presume/hope not – though if the only acceptable jurors next time are those unaware of the first trial they wouldn’t perhaps be ideal people!


  27. 45
    Sandra in Accounts says:

    So we can DNA test burgers but not members of a jury?

    There was defo some bovine brain material on that jury.


  28. 49
    Anonymous says:

    Give the gal lots of brownies for having the balls to brazen it out.

    Come on, having to put up with a complete Hunt like Huhne she deserves a break. Benefit of the doubt and all that.


  29. 54
    male commonsense does not relate to females says:

    Shows the law is an ass in pursuing cases like this, unless it has an all male jury…for no group of women would ever find guilty, a woman apparently wronged by a bloke, regardless of fact.


  30. 55
    Nonny Mouse says:

    Called it right!


  31. 56
    Juror says:

    Can ask another question?

    Q11: If I am too stupid to avoid serving on a jury, am I also likely to be too stupid to understand the case?


  32. 58
    Gob Smacked says:

    Where the hell did they find the jury – “what do you mean by reasonable doubt?”

    Ye gods – have they never watched Rumpole of the Bailey?


    • 73
      Bollocks, I'll just read a book says:

      I’ve never watched RotB. There are lots of things I don’t watch, Borgen, The Killing, Dr Hu, soaps, West Wing, hospital dramas, you name it. I’ve given up watching Question Time as it makes me want to put an axe through the TV. Likewise Newsnight.

      I do like Time Team which is why the bastards are killing it.
      Also the Air Show, House Detectives, Restoration… All killed off.


      • 76
        Gob Smacked says:

        I can’t watch Newsnight or question time any more either.
        And Radio 4 news output makes me want to scream – I wish they understood that it is supposed to be news not a platform for their liberal/lefty opinions.


  33. 61
    ian says:

    jury “can you define what is reasonable doubt?”

    judge “A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable. duh”


  34. 63
    Blowing Whistles says:

    A question I would like answered.

    Why is Huhne not already behind bars – “On Remand?”

    e.g. There have been people placed in the prison system ‘serving time’ who have been called back at a later date to be sentenced.


    • 148
      The savant 10.4 highway patrol says:

      Because he s still perceived as a member of the great an the good club .

      He will probably do a. John. Stonehouse or. Reggie. Perrin or in extremis. Lord. Lucan and will decamp these shores for somewhere like. Paraguay who at last count still has no extradtion treaty with. UK dating back to. Stroessner s time.

      Yes. I did spell it correctly. Paraguay.

      Although paraquat. May well be a better. Final. Solution for him and the honourable thing .

      But since when has a. Rt. Honourable ever lived up to its responsibilities.


      • 161
        Blowing Whistles says:

        But – he is only percieved by his fellow wanchors. The public do not percieve him other than a bastard two-faced lying politician. And that’s what really counts.


  35. 66
    Check Facts First says:

    The defence team must be rubbing their hands. Easy money for them. I wonder if the Sunday Times political editor Isabel Oakeshott, who cynically set this particular hare running, will make a contribution to Vicky`s legal bill which must be enormous. There`s one certainty to come out of this and that is Vicky will be a lot poorer than when she started. Must make her think now if its all been worth it


    • 70
      Lou Scannon says:

      I’m still wondering why she chose this route when she claims that she could have taken Huhne down by other means without detriment to herself.


      • 75
        Blowing Whistles says:

        There is a possible and ‘completely seperate’ side issue as to the conduct of Isabel Oakeshott / The Sunday Times in their ‘attempts’ at ‘entrapment’ – but hey ain’t that been in murdoch’s bag of tricks for decades?


        • 88
          Check Facts First says:

          Never did like Ms Oakeshott. Good that the BBC dropped her from the Sunday Politic Show. BBC got something right at last. She certainly needs investigating for her own conduct over this. Will be interesting to see how she performs second time round. The prosecution might not let her off so lightly this time and it will also be in the interests of the defence to make out she was the real instigator, not Pryce, of this particular soap. I think Ms Oakshott might want to think about getting out of political reporting as MPs are a funny old bunch and they won`t take very kindly to one of their number being taken out by her.


          • Blowing Whistles says:

            The key is – who in the Executive office at NI sanctioned the entrapment issue – how high up the chain was it ok’d from? [The Hacking issue comes to mind]

            Watergate – FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    • 90
      Confucious says:

      Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves


  36. 85
    Labour Treason says:

    The jury would be drawn from inner london centering on Southwark, and you wonder why they don’t know the english language; please!!!!!


  37. 92
    Chris says:

    Positive: Huhne still doesn’t know his sentence – so hopefully is worse-case worrying.

    Negative: He’s not locked up until he’s sentenced.

    Is the delay in his sentencing good news or bad?


    • 100
      Anticipation can be so so wonderful says:

      As long as he is spending all night,, every night thinking about what might happen in the showers I think there might be a good argument for delaying his sentence more. But I wouldn”t want him to miss out on a good shower – I’m sure there are places Carina doesn’t get to that need some attention.


  38. 101
    what, were the jury ex-plod ? says:

    Can we make stuff up and find her guilty ?


  39. 105
    Ian says:

    It beggars belief that a jury can be so fucking stupid. What a bunch of tossers.


    • 106
      Ian says:

      Apparently they’re still trying to find their way out of the courtroom


    • 116
      Universal Hiss says:

      I would have thought that even the most challenged could grasp the meaning of reasonable doubt. If not they should not have been there.


  40. 111
    Votes for women says:

    A jury containing 8 women…


  41. 115
    Pig Sick huhne says:

    Shit. If I’d known the jury was likely to be loaded with immigrants and/or illiterates from our crap comprehhensive education system, I wouldn’t have pleaded guilty.

    The stupid fucking jury wouldn’t have reached a decision, and I’d have got off.


    • 120
      Universal Hiss says:

      Although the jury system in the main has served justice well,from this trail it seems we are paying a high cost of the education system in this country & several others around the world.

      How often are trails abandoned because of knuckle dragging,mouth breathing jurors?

      I bet we can’t see the stats kept on this if there is any such thing.


  42. 117
    Anonymous says:

    Language tests for Jurors


  43. 119
    They won't understand this either says:

    The Judge in the case, Mr Justice Sweeney, said that the jury had demonstrated a “fundamental deficit in understanding” of their role….

    In other words “You’re a complete bunch of morons and It’s not worth my time trying to explain AGAIN to you what I’ve told you 10 times already”


    • 123
      Universal Hiss says:

      So there is no such thing as contempt of court for jurors for being so fucking thick & wasting huge amounts of time & money?

      If not,why not?

      The language the judge used answering the mainly facile questions was quite funny. One could sense his growing frustration.


    • 129
      Juror says:

      Only Allah can pass judgement, inshallah.

      To be honest bruv, we don’ care if we can’t behead them on camera when we decide dey iz guiltee, innit.


  44. 122
    I am not answerable to the socialist dogcrap that Edinburgh shitty says:



  45. 124
    Anonymous says:

    What a bunch of mouth breathing fucktards that jury must have been.


  46. 126
    Another Headshrinker says:



  47. 128
    pete says:

    Well done to the jury for bringing the trial to such a farcical end.

    It is their revenge for being asked to consider a defence based on such an outdated and bizarre law.


  48. 131
    JH23429343409583049 says:

    Joking aside, the jury are obviously highly representative of a certain religious ‘faith’.


    They included a question about whether they could reach a verdict based on something which was not presented in court, and whether the defendant’s “religious conviction” to follow her wedding vows of obeying her then husband, Chris Huhne, would be reason enough to acquit her of committing a crime with him.

    Translation: they are backwards as fuck. 8 women, probably all in chadors, wittering among themselves about whether Pryce should be allowed to defy her husband in such a manner, after turning up at court without a male chaperone!


    • 139
      JH23429343409583049 says:


      Asked to define reasonable doubt, he said it was “a doubt that is reasonable”, adding: “These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with.”

      Nice work, lefties. Between your education and immigration policy you have left large tracts of the country with the possibility that trials will be a complete farce, due to the jury’s complete and utter willful ignorance of basic aspects of the indigenous culture and language.

      Bravo. I hope you all get viciously mugged, with the attacker getting off scott free because half his extended family got picked for jury service.


    • 147
      The savant 10.4 highway patrol says:

      Pity she did not ” obey her wedding vows”. By staying married to Mr. Pryce.

      Then hey you know what???

      None of this would have happened.

      The downside of course is that huhne would still be a. Minister of the. Crown


    • 165
      Votes for women says:

      To be fair to these cretinous women, the religious question was perhaps intended to determine whether the “belief that she had no choice” was an objective test or a subjective one; in other words, if she genuinely did believe it, even if based on a silly notion, then would that afford a defence? Or must the belief be not only honestly held but also reasonable? That is how a man would have put it anyway.


  49. 146
    geekparent says:

    So the jury were all Liberal Democrats then


  50. 149
    Mae bys Marianne wedi brifo says:

    Mr Fawkes, you’re a civilized person. Please remove the despicable disablist remark which must have been submitted by a Nazi, and help make this world a nicer place to live in.

    The other comments are very funny. Yes, the jury have been very silly but in their way they’ve been conscientious. They haven’t rushed to a verdict based on liking or not liking the look of someone. Yes, if Huhne had faced a jury of this calibre, he’d probably have got off.


  51. 157
    Anonymous says:

    What sort of intellectually challenged cretins could not find Vicky Pryce guilty or not guilty?

    I read the questions and answers the jury wanted clarification on. Ye Gods! What a bunch of dummies!! What have they been doing in the court for the past couple of weeks? Sleeping?? Where have they been living until now? The Moon?? Where did they go to school and how can they not understand the absolute basics? Unbelievable!! Perhaps they have been watching too much Midsomer Murders, Coronation Street or something… Are there really people that dumb? I despair of the jury system if this is the result:

    The questions that left Mr Justice Sweeney flummoxed :

    Q1. Please provide examples of what may fall within the defence of martial coercion, specifically ‘will was overborne’ and does the defence require violence or physical threat?

    Answer: “The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice.”

    Q2. In the scenario that the defendant may be guilty but there may not be enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the notice of intent to prosecute to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be?

    Answer: “If at least 10 of you feel sure of the guilt of the defendant it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If at least 10 of you were feeling less than sure of guilt, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.”

    Q3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict?

    Answer: “The drawing of an inference is permissible. Speculation is not.”

    Q4: Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

    Answer: “A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with.”

    Q5: 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?

    Answer: “The answer is a firm no, because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.”

    Q6. Can we infer anything from the defence not bringing witnesses from the time of the offence, such as the au pair or neighbours?

    Answer: “You must not, as I have now emphasised many times, speculate on what witnesses who have not been called might have said or draw inferences from their absence. Her evidence is that no one else, other than Mr Huhne, was present when she signed the form.”

    Q7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?

    Answer: “There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence [or] to present a defence. In this case the defendant has given evidence and it is for you to judge the evidence from her in the same way you would any other witness.”

    Q8. Can we speculate about the events at the time Miss Pryce sent the form or what was in her mind when she sent the form?

    Answer: “No. In a criminal trial no one must speculate … speculation is guesswork.”

    Q9. The jury is continuing to ask questions raised by the police. Given that the case has come to court without answers to these questions please advise on which facts the jury should count on to determine a verdict.

    Answer: “You must decide the case on the evidence [put before the court]. It is for you to decide which you consider to be important, truthful and reliable then decide what common-sense conclusions you can safely draw. It is not for me to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important and which are not.”

    Q10 Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

    Answer: “This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did. Answering this question will not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case. I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case.”


  52. 158
    Not a Judge says:

    “There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence. On the contrary there is no burden on the defendant to prove anything at all.”

    Since she is took the points, I uspect the jury were having a problem with this. And it seems pretty dodgy. Surely she should have to give good evidence for mitigating circumstances, not that the prosecution should prove the negative.


  53. 162
    Sid Viscous says:

    I’m glad that I’ve lived to see this day – never to be forgotten – when the fabric tore and we reaped the whirlwind of our education system’s utter failure. (Mixed metaphors my speciality.) Q4 and its answer should be graven in stone and perched above all courthouses as a terrible warning. Already the BBC are suggesting scrapping juries and who’s to say it’s a bad idea? Huhne must be kicking himself (or getting Carina to do it). Imagine what they would have asked if he’d persevered: “What is ‘Guilty?’ “


  54. 166
    John Bellingham says:

    Has anyone read Vicky Pryce’s Wiki entry?
    She is currently in a “relationship” with—wait for it, Denis MacShane!
    Warning. Do not shag this woman–you will end up inside.



    • 176
      Dick says:

      When you shag a woman you usually do “end up inside”.


    • 184
      Oscar says:

      Could this be what they referred to in Q5: 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?

      To misquote Lady Bracknell: “To get involved with one dishonest politician may be a regarded as a misfortune, to get involved with two looks like carelessness!”


  55. 168
    bill says:

    who thinks this is a stitch up?

    the legal profession are a self serving bunch who have raked fees in from the great recession with no remorse for anybody or anything.

    now we have a country so badly educated that we can form a jury that understands the basics of law or logic.

    to me lawyers have always had a chip on their shoulder about businessmen and the city,this is pay back for them.they think they are ruling the roost,but you cant have a country run by bureaucrats.britain is in much more trouble than people think.


  56. 173

    She should be in Jail for abusing my eyes!
    Have you ever seen so much ugliness in just one face!
    The Jury well 8 women 4 men there’s a clue Sherlock
    Bring back “12 Good Men an True”


  57. 174
    Michael says:

    So.. the case went.

    Prosecution – “You took speeding points”.

    Defence – “Yeah but hubby made me”.

    Jury – “wtf?”


  58. 181
    Elephant in the room says:

    Ten of the jurors were of Afro-Caribbean or South Asian background. Only 2 were white. Proceedings stopped early twice for “religious observance”, which to me sounds like at least one of the jury was a seventh day adventist who had to get home before sunset


  59. 185
    Anonymous says:

    Justice is not the main concern for the law in this country but gives priority to judicial procedure. Some things are allowed and others disallowed which means the jury can be given half the truth and they can feel that when seeing first-hand the people involved.

    I am not surprised this doesn’t happen more often when a jury is ‘directed’ by the judge in a particular way. Why have the jury there at all if the judge sets boundries for the truth.


  60. 186
    Dave S says:

    A lady in the audience of Question Time asked ‘should jurors be required to speak English?’, correct me if I am wrong, but did Diane Abbott say that ‘is was not an issue’.

    Is it me?


Seen Elsewhere

Twitter Should Not Ban Racist Words | Alex Wickham
Guardian Staff’s Elite Schooling | Chris McGovern
Term-Time Holidays Were State Encouraged | Liberal England
What Did Britain Really Look Like in 1930s? | CapX
Who Is Steering Labour’s Strategy? | Ballot Box
Greens are UKIP for Young People | Telegraph
Short-Termism of CCHQ | ConHome
May Aide: CCHQ Are Being Misleading | Telegraph
Tories Planning For Second Election | Guardian
We Are Losing Cyber War | Fraser Nelson
Osborne Aide Lands Pay Rise | Mirror

Find out more about PLMR AD-MS

Mandy Rice-Davies (R.I.P.) on Lord Astor’s denial of their affair….

“Well he would, wouldn’t he?”

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,641 other followers