Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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 test is not whether she was "pressured", to succeed the prosecution had to convince the jury that her will has not overpowered by his such that she had no choice but to unwillingly take part in the offence. The burden of proof that everyone thought applied - she had to demonstrate she was coerced - was reversed by the judge in this case who required proof beyond reasonable doubt that she was not coerced. The jury unanimously agreed they had met this hurdle so she was convicted.

She could have denied she was driving at the time which would have been simple to prove as she had a public engagement which meant it was impossible she could have been in the car when it was caught speeding. She didn't and as a result she will go to jail - rightly.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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.

Has she not lost most of her grounds for mitigation by not admitting the charge? Presumably he gets a discount on sentence for his (belated) guilty plea but she doesn't as she went to trial?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Most appropriate suggestion I have seen is to give them both house arrest.


In the same house.

 

[Nessie]

Most appropriate suggestion I have seen is to give them both house arrest.


In the same house.

Oh no, the same car

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Oh no, the same car

Wouldn't work. They would never agree who was in the driving seat.

Another MP going to live in the big hoose. How much more likely is it that an MP ends up in jail than an average punter now?

Aitken, Archer, Morley, Chaytor, Illsley, Devine and if there had been any justice Moran. Since 99. And a few more who scraped out of it by the skin of their teeth.

 

[anglolawyer]

Has she not lost most of her grounds for mitigation by not admitting the charge? Presumably he gets a discount on sentence for his (belated) guilty plea but she doesn't as she went to trial?

It's an unusual one because her defence, which failed, can still do service as her mitigation - she was pressured, gained nothing for herself and even gets credit (OK not much) for bringing the thing to light.

He, on the other hand, strung things out to the last minute, forcing the crown to fully prepare its case. Only once the text messages got in he put his hands up. What defence could he offer without perjuring himself?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It's an unusual one because her defence, which failed, can still do service as her mitigation - she was pressured, gained nothing for herself and even gets credit (OK not much) for bringing the thing to light.

He, on the other hand, strung things out to the last minute, forcing the crown to fully prepare its case. Only once the text messages got in he put his hands up. What defence could he offer without perjuring himself?

Not the last minute. He could have taken it to trial. Like she did. And given that the jury did not buy the coercion defence, has she not perjured herself?

 

[anglolawyer]

Not the last minute. He could have taken it to trial. Like she did. And given that the jury did not buy the coercion defence, has she not perjured herself?

Oh no. The jury just didn't buy that what she described amounted to coercion. You won't hear anything about perjury. You may be right about Huhne. We'll see.

 

[Darat]

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......

...snip...

It's an even smaller subset as it is a defence for married women.

 

[Rat]

It's an even smaller subset as it is a defence for married women.

But as I think someone asked earlier, if the law stays, how will it apply to gay marriage? Although it is only women that can claim marital coercion, I suspect that the belief if anything is that it is that it is only men who can coerce, rather than only women being capable of being coerced. So will two married women be able to coerce each other?

 

[Andy_Ross]

If she got the S172 Request and replied that she wasn't the driver they would have gone back to the original recipient of the NIP.
If they were in a good mood they would have given him another request and a chance to put right his 'error'

 

[Darat]

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

I have no sympathy for those idiots who go on to be banned for cumulative speeding points, how stupid and incapable of self control do you have to be to not get the message by the time you have 9 points...

 

[Antony]

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.

I do not share your assumption that there are laws that protect someone who is in Vicky Pryce's position, as in March 2003. I would like to see what the laws are that cover the innocent driver whose details are given without their agreement. We can agree that that's how the laws should work, if they were fair - but I'm not convinced that it's any more than wishful thinking.

The process in these cases are that when a car is detected speeding, a form is sent to the registered vehicle keeper who has to declare who the driver was. It's easy for us to say what she should have done when confronted by her husband, pen in hand, but I'm not any more confident than she was, that the process set in motion could be changed.

Prosecuting Vicky Pryce has done nothing to discourage point-swapping. What it does is send the message "don't break silence", and will strengthen the hand of domineering husbands (and others in abusive relationships) to bully their partners into compliance.

 

[Rat]

I do not share your assumption that there are laws that protect someone who is in Vicky Pryce's position, as in March 2003. I would like to see what the laws are that cover the innocent driver whose details are given without their agreement. We can agree that that's how the laws should work, if they were fair - but I'm not convinced that it's any more than wishful thinking.

I can't remember saying that there were laws that protect someone in that position, since I'm not sure they are needed explicitly. Is it your contention that if I speed and get caught, I can put down any random person's name and that person must then fight a case? Or does this only work for spouses?

The process in these cases are that when a car is detected speeding, a form is sent to the registered vehicle keeper who has to declare who the driver was. It's easy for us to say what she should have done when confronted by her husband, pen in hand, but I'm not any more confident than she was, that the process set in motion could be changed.

Prosecuting Vicky Pryce has done nothing to discourage point-swapping. What it does is send the message "don't break silence", and will strengthen the hand of domineering husbands (and others in abusive relationships) to bully their partners into compliance.

It is indeed easy for us to say. She should have denied the charge. That was easy. I'm not aware that there is any charge that he was a domineering husband, or that theirs was an abusive relationship involving bullying. Again, would you say that marital coercion should cover any abetting of offences, or is it only for speeding points?

 

[Antony]

If she got the S172 Request and replied that she wasn't the driver they would have gone back to the original recipient of the NIP.
If they were in a good mood they would have given him another request and a chance to put right his 'error'

From what anyone can gather from the accounts we have, Huhne intercepted all the paperwork and filled it out as though on Pryce's behalf, then browbeat her into adding her signature. If these accounts are not in dispute, I cannot agree with the guilty verdict against Pryce.

The "marital coercion" defence is clearly unjust, since it applies only to wives - and in any case seems to have been worthless in this case. Far from being removed from statute, though, IMO it needs to be extended to cover any abusive relationship, particularly between 2 people living at the same address.

There's no way of knowing just how many equivalent cases there have been, but we can't be confident that this case is unique. With the Pryce verdict, the courts have shown themselves to be on the side of the bully, not of the victim. It means that any hidden cases of this are very unlikely to come to light.

 

[Antony]

I can't remember saying that there were laws that protect someone in that position, since I'm not sure they are needed explicitly. Is it your contention that if I speed and get caught, I can put down any random person's name and that person must then fight a case? Or does this only work for spouses?

I heard of a case where an unlicensed driver impersonated an acquaintance when stopped by police. The innocent man came on a radio phone-in programme afterwards; it seems that in spite of the fact that he at no time played along with this, he ended up with 9 penalty points and a heavy fine, apparently for "allowing his name to be used".

Sorry I can't report the details of this as I didn't note them at the time, but it is the reason that I have no confidence in the law allowing Pryce a way out of the situation, once Huhne had given her name as the offending driver.

It is indeed easy for us to say. She should have denied the charge. That was easy.

Your lack of empathy appals me.

I'm not aware that there is any charge that he was a domineering husband, or that theirs was an abusive relationship involving bullying.

Of course, he wasn't charged with bullying his wife. I don't know all the sordid details that came out about their marriage.

Again, would you say that marital coercion should cover any abetting of offences, or is it only for speeding points?

The principle needs to be there to cover situations where an individual is dragged into a cover-up without their agreement.

 

[geni]

From what anyone can gather from the accounts we have, Huhne intercepted all the paperwork and filled it out as though on Pryce's behalf, then browbeat her into adding her signature. If these accounts are not in dispute, I cannot agree with the guilty verdict against Pryce.

You realise that given Pryce's background you've just given say aldermaston a valid reason never to employ a married woman?

The "marital coercion" defence is clearly unjust, since it applies only to wives - and in any case seems to have been worthless in this case. Far from being removed from statute, though, IMO it needs to be extended to cover any abusive relationship, particularly between 2 people living at the same address.

The trial was over a matter of points on a driving license not domestic abuse.

There's no way of knowing just how many equivalent cases there have been, but we can't be confident that this case is unique. With the Pryce verdict, the courts have shown themselves to be on the side of the bully, not of the victim. It means that any hidden cases of this are very unlikely to come to light.

The courts are on the side of the law. And Pryce's as a victim is an odd choice. Check out her CV some time. Seriously responsible positions and was probably out earning her husband until around 2010. This is not someone would be easy to intimidate.

 

[geni]

I heard of a case where an unlicensed driver impersonated an acquaintance when stopped by police. The innocent man came on a radio phone-in programme afterwards; it seems that in spite of the fact that he at no time played along with this, he ended up with 9 penalty points and a heavy fine, apparently for "allowing his name to be used".

Sorry I can't report the details of this as I didn't note them at the time, but it is the reason that I have no confidence in the law allowing Pryce a way out of the situation, once Huhne had given her name as the offending driver.

You really expect this forum to accept half remebered radio phone-in claims as evidence?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Which is rather common in any case. How many parents do you think are really the primary driver of 2 cars?



6 point limit remember so the margin for error is rather narrow. Sure for a lot of new drivers this is less of an issue since if they go to uni they may not even need a car but they do then have to re-pass their test.




Could probably be worked out by comparing speed camera data with data from when the driver is actualy stopped.

Just noticed the bolded bit - say what?!?

 

[geni]

Just noticed the bolded bit - say what?!?

Most univerisities have halls and other student acomidation close enough to the university in order to negate the need for cars. Those that don't have bus routes that serve the same function. Throw in the high cost of car ownership and low student incomes and most get by without a car.