Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

[catsmate]

Three of them? Do you hang around with a lot of criminals?

No lawyers and cops......

One barrister was the (business) partner of the (personal) partner of a member of my family and as I'd done a fair amount of expert witness work in the IT area I knew people involved in two other cases.
My work means I'm ineligible for most (for example) child porn cases as I've worked with people involved in the technical evidence gathering.

No, I doubt it too, although I am told that US lawyers may often exclude people with expertise in whatever science they're intending to blind the jury with.

That seems likely.

 

[anglolawyer]

Under starters orders again, according to the BBC with a new jury of seven men and five women:

The judge told them to put out of their minds anything they had learned of the first jury's failure to reach a verdict.

He said: "You judge the case afresh... only on the evidence that unfolds before you. The other jury's disagreement is irrelevant in this case."

 

[catsmate]

Under starters orders again, according to the BBC with a new jury of seven men and five women:

That's remarkably quick isn't it?

 

[The Don]

This story just keeps on giving:

Police are investigating a barrister and part-time judge for allegedly lying about helping to leak the Chris Huhne speeding points story, a trial heard.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21587980

 

[nathan]

That's remarkably quick isn't it?

I don't think so -- why wait?

 

[anglolawyer]

That's remarkably quick isn't it?

Yes, I think so. Although it's a very unusual thing to happen. There were some stats in one of the papers yesterday pointing out that hung juries arise in less than 1% of cases. The only one I can call to mind was Sion Jenkins (note correct spelling please Rolfe) who was re-tried a couple of times for murder and there were lengthy gaps between trials. I guess that has to do with practical and mundane matters such as finding dates when everyone is available. Here, the prosecution case is not disputed so there are presumably no crown witnesses, or the evidence is all on paper, so it's probably easier to just get cracking a second time.

 

[anglolawyer]

This story just keeps on giving:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21587980

Constance Briscoe seems to attract notoriety on a number of fronts. This from wikipedia:

Briscoe is known for her books Ugly and Beyond Ugly in which she claims she was abused as a child. She often talks publicly about her experiences. Her mother, Carmen Briscoe-Mitchell, sued her daughter and her publishers Hodder & Stoughton for libel.[5] The case was concluded in Briscoe's favour, when a jury in the High Court unanimously found that the books were not libellous.

 

[catsmate]

Yes, I think so. Although it's a very unusual thing to happen. There were some stats in one of the papers yesterday pointing out that hung juries arise in less than 1% of cases. The only one I can call to mind was Sion Jenkins (note correct spelling please Rolfe) who was re-tried a couple of times for murder and there were lengthy gaps between trials. I guess that has to do with practical and mundane matters such as finding dates when everyone is available. Here, the prosecution case is not disputed so there are presumably no crown witnesses, or the evidence is all on paper, so it's probably easier to just get cracking a second time.

Ah, I don't have that much experience with the organisational side of things.

 

[andyandy]

Justice is served:

Vicky Pryce, the ex-wife of the disgraced cabinet minister Chris Huhne, has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice by taking his speeding points a decade ago. The case raised questions about what the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, knew of the scandal before it was made public.

A jury rejected Pryce's claims she had been "pressurised" by the former energy secretary to take the points. The verdict followed two trials which laid bare details of the couple's bitter marriage breakup, his infidelity, and her mission to destroy him thereafter through the press.

As Pryce, 60, a one-time senior government economist, and Huhne both now face the prospect of prison sentences, there are questions about what the Liberal Democrat leader knew of the cloud hanging over the former MP before it was exposed by the Sunday Times in May 2011.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-convicted-chris-huhne

I wonder if "marital coercion" will be removed from the statute books? It's pretty sexist to have it only applicable to women - pretty much a built in legal misogyny......

From the reports, her desire to ruin her ex-husbands career out of spite doesn't leave me much sympathy that it inadvertently ruined hers as well.

 

[The Don]

Taking points for your partner was, at the time, viewed as a minor victimless crime. I think that opinions have changed significantly in the meantime.

That said, nothing more would have been said if Chris Huhne hadn't played hide the sausage and if Vicky Pryce hadn't tried to ruin him. IMO both of them handled all aspects despicably. In particular his late guilty plea (when he failed to get key evidence excluded) and her Marital Coercion defence.

I'm not sure that Marital Coercion will be removed but only because of inertia.

 

[andyandy]

Taking points for your partner was, at the time, viewed as a minor victimless crime. I think that opinions have changed significantly in the meantime.

That said, nothing more would have been said if Chris Huhne hadn't played hide the sausage and if Vicky Pryce hadn't tried to ruin him. IMO both of them handled all aspects despicably. In particular his late guilty plea (when he failed to get key evidence excluded) and her Marital Coercion defence.

I'm not sure that Marital Coercion will be removed but only because of inertia.

I agree - it seems one of those cases where it's hard to feel any sympathy for either of them. Even though I don't personally think taking someone's points should be a jailable offence, it does seem like divine karmic retribution for their behaviour afterwards.

 

[The Don]

Even though I don't personally think taking someone's points should be a jailable offence

I agree that gaol time is harsh but unless there's a specific offence of taking someone else's points.

My feeling would be a 12 month ban for both parties would be fair (with prison time and/or a 5 year ban for a second offence)

 

[Antony]

Justice is served:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-convicted-chris-huhne

I wonder if "marital coercion" will be removed from the statute books? It's pretty sexist to have it only applicable to women - pretty much a built in legal misogyny......

It's regrettable if the fact that it only applies to women influenced the verdict.

From the reports, her desire to ruin her ex-husbands career out of spite doesn't leave me much sympathy that it inadvertently ruined hers as well.

Well, she wasn't on trial for wanting to ruin her ex-husband's career. This case illustrates the law of unintended consequences. It seems Pryce is being punished not for accepting her husband's points, but for not keeping quiet about it.

What is the message of this case? I'll tell you: if you find yourself in Pryce's position, where someone has wrongly named you as a driving offender, just go along with it. If you have 9 points on your licence and pick up a another ticket, just name someone else as the driver, because that person will know they'll be in bigger trouble if they don't agree.

How is the public interest served by prosecuting Pryce?

 

[Nessie]

Or pay more attention and don't get any points at all.

 

[Rat]

What is the message of this case? I'll tell you: if you find yourself in Pryce's position, where someone has wrongly named you as a driving offender, just go along with it. If you have 9 points on your licence and pick up a another ticket, just name someone else as the driver, because that person will know they'll be in bigger trouble if they don't agree.

I'm not seeing this. She signed to say that she was the driver, which she didn't have to do. If he had come home one day and said "I've just murdered someone for a laugh. You'll have to give me an alibi", would she still say that she had to go along with it because otherwise it would hinder his career?

I'm mystified by the numbers I've heard of people who didn't even know that this was a crime. I'm not at all sure that those people should be on the road at all.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It seems to be a common enough sentiment that it was a scenario in the Jack Dee sitcom Lead Balloon:

Rick is caught speeding and sees that if he gets three more points he will be disqualified from driving. His attempts to persuade Marty, Mel and newly-qualified driver Magda to take the rap all fail and he ends up having to attend a speeding management course where he is humiliated by a sarcastic group leader.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1148488/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

 

[Antony]

I'm not seeing this. She signed to say that she was the driver, which she didn't have to do.

Well, that's the nub of the case. I'd like to know what would have been the legal consequences for Pryce - given that Huhne had named her as the driver - if she'd simply not signed. I don't believe the system makes any allowances for someone in that position, even though they are in the situation through no action of their own. That's apart from any domestic pressure that Huhne was able to put upon her.

I don't think the prosecution proved its case. Now, of course, it could be that Pryce was making up the story of being coerced into signing, but there's no evidence other than, basically, that Huhne stood in front of her with the completed form. How could the jury conclude that she wasn't "pressured"?

 

[Rat]

Well, that's the nub of the case. I'd like to know what would have been the legal consequences for Pryce - given that Huhne had named her as the driver - if she'd simply not signed. I don't believe the system makes any allowances for someone in that position, even though they are in the situation through no action of their own. That's apart from any domestic pressure that Huhne was able to put upon her.

I don't think the prosecution proved its case. Now, of course, it could be that Pryce was making up the story of being coerced into signing, but there's no evidence other than, basically, that Huhne stood in front of her with the completed form. How could the jury conclude that she wasn't "pressured"?

The consequences would be that she would say that she wasn't the driver. She would then presumably be asked why she was named as driver. Where it went from there would again depend on her answer. As far as I know, the worst that could happen is that she is called as a witness at her husband's trial. Again, this is no different to any other crime.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Well, that's the nub of the case. I'd like to know what would have been the legal consequences for Pryce - given that Huhne had named her as the driver - if she'd simply not signed.

If you receive such a notice saying you have been named as the driver and you weren't, you can contest that.

 

[anglolawyer]

If you receive such a notice saying you have been named as the driver and you weren't, you can contest that.

Of course! The lesson of the case is not to go along with such folly. It has never been the case that this is not taken seriously. I had cases like this 30 years ago. If she had taken advice she would have found another way to get revenge now she can repent at leisure.

It's funny about peoples' lack of moral compass. Fraudulent insurance claims are also widely considered legit for some reason.

He will go to prison I bet, she may just get lucky as she has a lot of mitigation but maybe not. Whether they should do time is another question. They certainly should not get preferential treatment.