Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

The common spoken abbreviated form in Scotland by the police and courts is "attempt to pervert". It must sound a bit odd over heard by someone not in the know.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That looks to me more like a question written by a frustrated group of jurors, trying to use the judge to persuade another juror that no, they really were not allowed to decide based on something they googled.
Click to expand...


The questions have just been read out again on the Ten O'clock News, and I'm inclined to agree with you. The questions were probably written by the sane jury members trying to get leverage on the fruitcake tendency.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
The questions have just been read out again on the Ten O'clock News, and I'm inclined to agree with you. The questions were probably written by the sane jury members trying to get leverage on the fruitcake tendency.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

And it still didn't work!
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I see where you are coming from but to make the analogy closer, he would also need to have confessed voluntarily after the original confession was ruled admissible, at a time when he was not under any duress.
Click to expand...

I don't follow Jaggy.

You have a prosecution consisting of evidence X and Y (whatever it may be). The defence argues X should be thrown out and has good chances if it succeeds but the judge allows X. So, the game's up. Plead guilty and appeal. Why shouldn't this be possible, assuming the judge is wrong?
 
anglolawyer said:
I don't follow Jaggy.

You have a prosecution consisting of evidence X and Y (whatever it may be). The defence argues X should be thrown out and has good chances if it succeeds but the judge allows X. So, the game's up. Plead guilty and appeal. Why shouldn't this be possible, assuming the judge is wrong?
Click to expand...

Why plead guilty? If you go to trial and X is admitted then you can appeal that you didn't get a fair trial.

What Huhne did was indicate, if you are admitting evidence X then I will admit I did it - at no time after the evidence was to be admitted did he argue he was innocent, in fact he spoke of taking responsibility for what happened.

Very hard to now turn round and argue that he never meant he did it, only that he would be convicted.

If the evidence is that prejudicial to a case, is it not possible to appeal the trial judges decision before changing the plea?
 
Last edited:
Jaggy Bunnet said:
Why plead guilty? If you go to trial and X is admitted then you can appeal that you didn't get a fair trial.

What Huhne did was indicate, if you are admitting evidence X then I will admit I did it - at no time after the evidence was to be admitted did he argue he was innocent, in fact he spoke of taking responsibility for what happened.

Very hard to now turn round and argue that he never meant he did it, only that he would be convicted.

If the evidence is that prejudicial to a case, is it not possible to appeal the trial judges decision before changing the plea?
Click to expand...

Hmm. An interim (interlocutory appeal). I don't think you have these in criminal law, but I could be wrong. He did not admit he did it, only that the prosecution could prove the charge to the required standard according to the law. We're in danger of getting philosophical here but TRUTH (what he actually did) is essentially unattainable. What the system strives for is proof of facts to a pre-set standard. If his only challenge to a part of the evidence is admissibility and nothing else then it's reasonable to plead guilty when faced with an adverse ruling.

He is not saying: 'I did it', but, 'OK, under the rules as applied by the judge, you proved the charge'. That's different.
 
The problem of jury trials - sometimes we choose a bunch of numpties:

Vicky Pryce, the ex-wife of the disgraced cabinet minister Chris Huhne, faces a retrial next week over taking speeding points for him because a jury failed to reach a verdict, after suffering what the judge described as "absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding".
Mr Justice Sweeney discharged the panel of eight women and four men following more than 15 hours of deliberations, and a day after they submitted 10 questions that indicated they had not grasped the basics of their task.
In more than 30 years of criminal trials, said Sweeney, he had never come across such circumstances.
After trying to answer their questions, which included one on whether a juror could reach a verdict based on a reason not put in evidence before them, Sweeney said he would accept a majority verdict on which at least 10 were agreed. If they could not do so, he told them, "you must, of course, have the courage to say so".
Click to expand...

The judge was pretty scathing about their basic incompetence. Asking questions such as "what is reasonable doubt" (judge's answer - it is doubt which is reasonable" ) probably didn't inspire confidence....
 
I still reckon, as Jack said, that the questions were asked by the sensible ones, in an attempt to get the judge to explain that the behaviour of the fruitcake contingent was unacceptable.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Is there an offence in English law of perverting the course of justice? I have been schooled by a couple of Scottish QCs in relation to the ongoing machinations in relation to the Lockerbie case that there is no such offence. The offence is attempting to pervert the course of justice, and it doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether the attempt was successful or not.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia entry on this makes the point that a successful perversion of the course of justice would not necessarily be known about.
 
Oh, watch this space.

And at the most basic level, what the Huhnes did in 2003 was spectacularly successful. It was however uncovered later. That doesn't seem like a terribly improbable sequence of events.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
However, as I pointed out, these things do emerge. As in the present case, ten years on. Didn't the inquiry into the IRA bombings convictions pick up a few examples?

Rolfe.
 
anglolawyer said:
Hmm. An interim (interlocutory appeal). I don't think you have these in criminal law, but I could be wrong. He did not admit he did it, only that the prosecution could prove the charge to the required standard according to the law. We're in danger of getting philosophical here but TRUTH (what he actually did) is essentially unattainable. What the system strives for is proof of facts to a pre-set standard. If his only challenge to a part of the evidence is admissibility and nothing else then it's reasonable to plead guilty when faced with an adverse ruling.

He is not saying: 'I did it', but, 'OK, under the rules as applied by the judge, you proved the charge'. That's different.
Click to expand...

By pleading guilty, I agree. But he then gave a press statement where he did admit doing it and spoke of taking responsibility. So even if he wins an appeal and gets the original verdict set aside, he has a problem at a retrial if he then denies it.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
By pleading guilty, I agree. But he then gave a press statement where he did admit doing it and spoke of taking responsibility. So even if he wins an appeal and gets the original verdict set aside, he has a problem at a retrial if he then denies it.
Click to expand...

I thought he just said he had decided to 'take responsibility' for something that happened 10 years ago, not 'the game's up, I done it'. Even if he did say that I still think it would be irrelevant to the appeal court. Wouldn't it be strange if they said 'well, in law, you were unfairly tried but we saw what you said on the telly and you're guilty, so tough.'
 
anglolawyer said:
I thought he just said he had decided to 'take responsibility' for something that happened 10 years ago, not 'the game's up, I done it'. Even if he did say that I still think it would be irrelevant to the appeal court. Wouldn't it be strange if they said 'well, in law, you were unfairly tried but we saw what you said on the telly and you're guilty, so tough.'
Click to expand...

It would be, but it depends what question is asked. For example if they are evaluating whether the conviction is safe, it may well be relevant.

However even if he wins the appeal and is sent for retrial, his defence now needs to address the "confession" he made after pleading guilty. I don't think a claim he couldn't get a fair trial is going to fly as there has been much more pre trial publicity in other cases than would be the case here.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
It would be, but it depends what question is asked. For example if they are evaluating whether the conviction is safe, it may well be relevant.

However even if he wins the appeal and is sent for retrial, his defence now needs to address the "confession" he made after pleading guilty. I don't think a claim he couldn't get a fair trial is going to fly as there has been much more pre trial publicity in other cases than would be the case here.
Click to expand...

But we have all read the explosive text messages. With his son telling him to eff off etc. I should have thought, if those were ruled inadmissible, then he would have very fair prospects of arguing that it would not be possible to find a jury which was unaware of them. And the 'confession' might also be advanced as something prejudicial to a re-trial. It's better than going to jail and it's not as if he can't afford it. He would need to get a stay pending appeal though and I am not sure how that works. Normally, the murderer/robber/rapist spends a couple of years in chokey while the wheels slowly turn but with money and power I guess you can bypass all that.

And I could be totally wrong. It's just an intriguing thought.
 
anglolawyer said:
But we have all read the explosive text messages. With his son telling him to eff off etc. I should have thought, if those were ruled inadmissible, then he would have very fair prospects of arguing that it would not be possible to find a jury which was unaware of them. And the 'confession' might also be advanced as something prejudicial to a re-trial. It's better than going to jail and it's not as if he can't afford it. He would need to get a stay pending appeal though and I am not sure how that works. Normally, the murderer/robber/rapist spends a couple of years in chokey while the wheels slowly turn but with money and power I guess you can bypass all that.

And I could be totally wrong. It's just an intriguing thought.
Click to expand...

I doubt more than a fraction of the jury pool have read them - certainly less than would be likely to have seen details in more high profile cases. This is a big issue for political nerds but a non issue to the majority of the population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom