Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

There are 8 women and 4 men on the jury. That should be bad for her as, in my extensive and thoroughly reliable experience, women are tougher on women than men are. I would definitely find her guilty. The defence of marital coercion is an outdated relic and, in its present form, dates from 1925 when men were men and wives waited at home with the slippers and pipe. They had scarcely been allowed the vote at the time. Vicky Pryce is an eminent and successful economist well capable of exercising her own moral judgment. I'm betting there is a minority holding out for not guilty and it will be a question whether that minority can be reduced to two. Then, she's toast and will be hoping for a 'bender' (a suspended sentence) which she might just get.
 
The BBC has reported on a series of 10 questions being posed to the judge including (if memory serves):

  • Could a juror reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it - Judge, No
  • Can the jury take into account religious beliefs (a religious duty to obey a husband) - Judge, no
  • The judge was clear than jury members can make reasonable inference - whatever that means

It does tend towards a minority of holdouts for a not guilty verdict.
 
The Don said:
The BBC has reported on a series of 10 questions being posed to the judge including (if memory serves):

  • Could a juror reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it - Judge, No
  • Can the jury take into account religious beliefs (a religious duty to obey a husband) - Judge, no
  • The judge was clear than jury members can make reasonable inference - whatever that means

It does tend towards a minority of holdouts for a not guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

The last one just means that one is allowed to draw inferences from circumstances. It is a circumstance in this case that she had an abortion under pressure for him (such was her evidence). Can one draw an inference from that about the degree of control he exercised generally? Answer: yes. Is it reasonable to draw the inference that his control was such as to negate her own will? Answer: we'll find out some time this afternoon probably.
 
Matthew Best said:
What kind of idiotic juror asks if they can reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it?
Click to expand...

Maybe one who has been researching the case on google. All jurors are strictly warned at the start of each trial not to do such things but, I suspect, many just can't resist the temptation.
 
SezMe said:
I'll do this from memory because it's not worth consulting Prof. Google.

In San Diego, California, cameras were installed to catch drivers going through red lights. But the cameras were owned and operated by private companies who got a slice of the action. The system was gamed in at least a couple of ways. One was to shorten the length of the period of the yellow light. So drivers who were used to the older period got caught. Apparently the private companies were making a lot of money.

Anyway, it got messy and I think the system is no longer used. As usual, there were also unintended consequences. Drives who knew an intersection was under camera would slam on their brakes to avoid being nabbed so the rate of rear-end accidents actually went up.
Click to expand...


In the UK Amber time is laid down in legislation it should be 3 seconds. A Camera will become active 1 second after the red displays. Amber means Stop of course just like Red unless it would be unsafe to do so.
People seem to take amber as 'hurry up'
They are usually only installed at lights that have a history of people 'jumping' or not stopping for red.
 
Jings.

It sounds as if they might have had at least one juror who believes a wife must obey her husband no matter what. Where would you find such a person? And if that wasn't Vicky Pryce's actual defence, why would it be relevant?

Retrial maybe next week, the article says. I hope she is stressed, devious bitch.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Jings.

It sounds as if they might have had at least one juror who believes a wife must obey her husband no matter what. Where would you find such a person? And if that wasn't Vicky Pryce's actual defence, why would it be relevant?

Retrial maybe next week, the article says. I hope she is stressed, devious bitch.
Rolfe.
Click to expand...

:D She clearly didn't have 12 Rolfes on the jury. And, on a point of order, there must have been at least three jurors who wouldn't play ball as the judge had already said he would accept a 10-2 verdict.

Her lawyers did a fantastic job with a hopeless case. I take my hat off to them and hope they enjoy their post-match cup of tea.

ETA if the gets off (i.e. no new trial) do you think she will still be on Chris's Christmas card list? The one he will use at Ford Open Prison? Actually, he'll probably get a year and be out in 6 months so perhaps I am being pessimistic.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
It sounds as if they might have had at least one juror who believes a wife must obey her husband no matter what. Where would you find such a person? And if that wasn't Vicky Pryce's actual defence, why would it be relevant?
Click to expand...

I believe that the defence was spousal coercion, she was so frightened of her husband that she felt compelled to do his bidding, so that would be very relevant and very regrettable.
 
Yes, but the nature of one of the queries from the jury seemed to indicate someone believed obedience was a duty, and she was thus obliged to obey him regardless.

Rolfe.
 
Well, the re-trial starts on Monday. Wow. If there is a delay with no explanation then I would expect that to be because the defence is applying to dismiss the prosecution on the ground that she can no longer get a fair trial in view of the publicity. 'Devious bitch' (Rolfe said that, not me) or not I can't help feeling sorry for her having to go through it again. Better than jail though and Huhne must die a death of a thousand cuts while waiting to be sentenced as that has been deferred.
 
I say devious bitch because she waited until she really, really had it in for him before coming clean with the story. I mean, ten years? This wasn't done to right a wrong, this was done for the express purpose of bringing him down.

Also, all the emails and so on between her and the journalist, planning it all, and discussing her chances of getting away with it, don't help. If she had approached the police at an earlier stage saying that her conscience impelled her to speak the truth now she was separated from her controlling husband, it might have looked better. This way, not so much.

Hell hath no fury, and all that.

Rolfe.
 
The Don said:
I believe that the defence was spousal coercion, she was so frightened of her husband that she felt compelled to do his bidding, so that would be very relevant and very regrettable.
Click to expand...

But the defence did not mention a religious reason for being compelled to obey him at all, so what the hell were the jury asking about it for?

The list of questions they ask should scare the crap out of any innocent person facing a jury trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/20/vicky-pryce-jury-can-reach-majority-verdict
 
anglolawyer said:
Well, the re-trial starts on Monday. Wow. If there is a delay with no explanation then I would expect that to be because the defence is applying to dismiss the prosecution on the ground that she can no longer get a fair trial in view of the publicity. 'Devious bitch' (Rolfe said that, not me) or not I can't help feeling sorry for her having to go through it again. Better than jail though and Huhne must die a death of a thousand cuts while waiting to be sentenced as that has been deferred.
Click to expand...

He must be looking at the jury questions and wondering why he didn't throw the dice and hope to get off.
 
Since rampant speculation is permissible in an internet thread, I'm going to speculate that there was one opinionated fruitcake in that jury, and that he (or maybe just possibly she) was vocal and persistent enough to drag a couple of other dimwits with him.

Rolfe.
 
The Don said:
I believe that the defence was spousal coercion, she was so frightened of her husband that she felt compelled to do his bidding, so that would be very relevant and very regrettable.
Click to expand...

IMHO the coercion defence is really a (possible) mitigating circumstance, which would affect sentencing -- not absolve one of guilt.

If it really is the case that statute has a 'my husband made me do it' clause, it's probably time to get rid of that. Hey, let's have it added as an amendment to the gay marriage bill!
 
They should have got rid of the marital coercion defence in 1977:

In 1977, the Law Commission recommended that the defence of marital coercion should be abolished altogether for several reasons, the first being the actual application of the law. It was believed that there were uncertainties surrounding the operation of the defence, for example, in relation to the strictness of the requirement in law that the husband be physically present when the wife commits the offence. In a modern world whereby people can communicate with each other at the touch of a button surely there would need to be some scope to manoeuvre on this aspect of the law.

Moreover, the Law Commission argued that they did not consider it to be appropriate to modern conditions. Many married women were then and are now financially independent from their husbands. Some commentators have suggested, as in the Law Commission’s report, that it is absurd to provide a special defence to wives which is not readily available to other women who may be placed in an equally vulnerable position. What of a woman cohabiting with a man or a daughter under the age of 18?

Furthermore, it could be argued that a defence that only applies to women could be seen as sexist. Are women incapable of coercing men? Are women so meek that they are still regarded as being subservient to men, particularly their husbands? Do they require greater protection from their spouses than their husbands do from them?
Click to expand...

http://johnvdld.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/a-history-of-marital-coercion/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom