Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

[anglolawyer]

He should sue!

ETA:He could have saved a bunch of that money by not litigating to have the case dropped. that was his choice.

I thought I would let someone else make this blindingly obvious point. He forgot to say it was also the kids' fault for needing to have money spent on them.

 

[Cuddles]

I wasn't sure what the law thought (the government often wants it both ways). Anyway, I found this:

Huh, I thought children over 18 still counted if they were still living at home and in full time education, but having looked into it I can't actually find anything to back that up.

 

[anglolawyer]

Huh, I thought children over 18 still counted if they were still living at home and in full time education, but having looked into it I can't actually find anything to back that up.

They still 'count' for certain purposes when dividing matrimonial assets in divorce proceedings. That is, the wife (usually) can get maintenance for the kids until they reach 18 or cease full time education. But the legal status of an 18 year old is in all respects that of an adult (thus: they can vote, marry, contract, drink etc)

 

[Rolfe]

YAB is famous for her caterwauling about how it must be racist or sexist because, well, she has no idea, it just must be.

Can I say "caterwauling"?

What completely took me to the fair was the way she caterwauled about how it was sexist, and then followed that up with the most astoundingly sexist comment I've yet seen on the case.

Rolfe.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

Huhne seems to have favoured the Times with an interview yesterday. He told the paper: 'revenge eats you up' and that Pryce's decision to disclose the offence meant that 'money that might have been put aside for the kids' had instead gone on paying large legal bills.

So it's all her fault.

Nice show of contrition there, Chris. If I was in charge of justice, this would see him hauled back into court to have another two months added to his sentence - one to take back his discount for pleading guilty, and one for contempt after his display in mitigation.

I'm not sure how just it would be in strict terms, but taking the poetic and natural forms of justice into account, I think the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[Brainster]

Friend of mine's father got his Doctorate in the mid-1970s at the same time his daughter graduated from high school, so they had a party to celebrate both. Dad has a couple drinks in him and challenges one of the guys who has a fast car to a drag race, which he loses. As they're exiting the highway, he's going a little too fast and hits the triangular piece of concrete that separates the highway from the exit. Car is now undrivable and the cops will be there pretty soon. Turns to his son in the passenger seat and says "You were driving." Son takes the rap (fortunately he wasn't drinking and as it was a one-car accident the charge wasn't too serious--something like failure to control the vehicle).

I thought at the time it was a smart decision. Of course, the drag race itself was pretty stupid.

 

[anglolawyer]

Letter in today's Guardian

"Controlling, manipulative and devious” – the judge’s description of Vicky Pryce could just as well be applied to Chris Huhne, but it was not (A tragedy of their own making, 12 march). He was coolly summed up in terms of his actions – “you lied”, “you have fallen” – whereas once again the woman in the case had to bear the added burden of harsh judgmental adjectives. As for “with little consideration of your wider family”, that surely applies as much to him as to her. Who said justice is blind?
Susan Tomes
London

 

[Rolfe]

Susan? Concert pianist from Edinburgh, must be about sixty now, I knew her when she was still at school, and we were both junior students at the RSAMD in the Saturday morning junior school. Mainly I knew her younger sister Hilary, sat beside her at choir while Susan played percussion in the orchestra. Another friend of mine, a vet I used to work with, was actually at school with both sisters, and in Susan's class.

Well, it's a small world. And a sexist one, with Susan (like Yasmin) doing her very best to make it even more sexist.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Susan? Concert pianist from Edinburgh, must be about sixty now, I knew her when she was still at school, and we were both junior students at the RSAMD in the Saturday morning junior school. Mainly I knew her younger sister Hilary, sat beside her at choir while Susan played percussion in the orchestra. Another friend of mine, a vet I used to work with, was actually at school with both sisters, and in Susan's class.

Well, it's a small world. And a sexist one, with Susan (like Yasmin) doing her very best to make it even more sexist.

Rolfe.

But she makes a good point, doesn't she? How does commenting on the judge's unfair discrimination make the world more sexist?

 

[Rolfe]

Repeated accusations of sexism where none really exists do indeed make the world a more sexist place. Yasmin's rant was absolutely jawdropping in that respect.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Repeated accusations of sexism where none really exists do indeed make the world a more sexist place. Yasmin's rant was absolutely jawdropping in that respect.

Rolfe.

Yasmin maybe but the letter I quoted made a very good point. Why was Pryce characterised in a manner which was equally applicable to Huhne? His conduct was arguably worse than hers IMO but whether it was or not all the judge's adjectives could have been applied to him with no less justification. Was it only because she is female? I can't think of a better reason.

 

[nathan]

Isn't it that Pryce denied guilt and went to trial, whereas Huhne admitted guilt (albeit at the last minute)? She tried to set him up, point the finger at someone else and not admit her own complicity.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't have a problem with what the judge said. Huhne simply lied and blustered. Flat lying denials are not controlling, manipulative and devious. They're a reaction from someone trying to buy time in the hope of finding a technicality to get off on.

She started it, in a manner she thought would lad him in it while escaping a penalty herself. Definitely a lot more devious.

I don't see any great difference in culpability between the pair of them, but what they did was different and the judge's remarks more or less reflected that.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't have a problem with what the judge said. Huhne simply lied and blustered. Flat lying denials are not controlling, manipulative and devious. They're a reaction from someone trying to buy time in the hope of finding a technicality to get off on.

She started it, in a manner she thought would lad him in it while escaping a penalty herself. Definitely a lot more devious.

I don't see any great difference in culpability between the pair of them, but what they did was different and the judge's remarks more or less reflected that.

Rolfe.

Well, let's see:

'Controlling' - this seems to apply better to him than to her. she had nothing to gain from taking his points. It was all for his benefit.

'manipulative' - same here, she cannot be said to have manipulated him into doing anything. If there was any manipulation at all then it was all on his side.


'devious' - well, again, where lies the difference between them, so far as the offence is concerned? They were both equally deceptive.

Bear in mind the judge has no business sentencing them for anything other than the offence committed in 2003. How things came to light is no part of his business and he should keep his opinions to himself. Their quarrel and her way of exacting revenge are completely and utterly irrelevant to the sentence and thus to his sentencing remarks. In fact, if any aspect of their conduct from 2010 onwards played a part in determining the sentence there would be strong grounds for appeal.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yup. She set herself up for a fall. I don't think she thought it through. Didn't she realize that if she landed him in it for PCoJ she would be equally guilty?

 

[Sunstealer]

Yasmin maybe but the letter I quoted made a very good point. Why was Pryce characterised in a manner which was equally applicable to Huhne? His conduct was arguably worse than hers IMO but whether it was or not all the judge's adjectives could have been applied to him with no less justification. Was it only because she is female? I can't think of a better reason.

Because Pryce took it all the way to trial whereby she tried to use every trick in the book to get off. As the judge said, the jury saw right through her. She was certainly trying to manipulate via the press, emails and telephone conversations as seen in court. That's why she got a rougher summing up. In contrast, the "huhne" [a rule 10 alternative] Huhne plead guilty at the last minute. Whilst he tried his hardest to string out the proceedings he didn't go all the way to trial, so there would not have been the same amount of information or manipulation going on in court with regard to him.

They are just as bad as each other imho - I hope their stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure is a real eye-opener for them. I must say there is a degree of schadenfreude to all this because I have no like for either of them.

 

[anglolawyer]

Because Pryce took it all the way to trial whereby she tried to use every trick in the book to get off. As the judge said, the jury saw right through her. She was certainly trying to manipulate via the press, emails and telephone conversations as seen in court. That's why she got a rougher summing up. In contrast, the huhne, Huhne plead guilty at the last minute. Whilst he tried his hardest to string out the proceedings he didn't go all the way to trial, so there would not have been the same amount of information or manipulation going on in court with regard to him.

They are just as bad as each other imho - I hope their stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure is a real eye-opener for them. I must say there is a degree of schadenfreude to all this because I have no like for either of them.

Well, her defence failed and that happens a lot. You lose credit you might otherwise have obtained for a prompt guilty plea. But her defence was not 'devious', 'manipulative' or 'controlling'. You might call it disingenuous, self-pitying, futile and unrealistic but those aren't the words the judge used. She is not to be sentenced more harshly because she lost.

And Huhne shouldn't get that much credit for his guilty plea. His unsuccessful application to exclude admissible evidence took longer (and thus cost more) than the trial would have, and all the while he knew the truth of the matter having lied in public about it.

What can the judge have been talking about?

 

[Sunstealer]

But her defence was not 'devious', 'manipulative' or 'controlling'.

No, but her behaviour (regarding the whole matter) was.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, but her behaviour (regarding the whole matter) was.

That's a legitimate opinion for you to hold but it is not relevant to her sentence. As I said, she is sentenced for point swapping, not for being a devious, vengeful wife. That is none of the judge's business at all.

 

[Sunstealer]

That's a legitimate opinion for you to hold but it is not relevant to her sentence. As I said, she is sentenced for point swapping, not for being a devious, vengeful wife. That is none of the judge's business at all.

I never said it was relevant to the sentence handed down and nor did the judge.

The judge on Huhne:

I make clear that your lies and your endeavour to manipulate the process of the court will not add a day to your sentence, although they are likely in due course be relevant to the issue of costs.

On Pryce:

Once charged, you Ms Pryce pursued your false defence of marital coercion. In doing so, just as you did in your dealings with the media, you have demonstrated that there is a controlling manipulative and devious side to your nature. However, ultimately, the good sense of the jury saw through you, and you were convicted.

In your case too I make clear that the way that you have conducted your case will add nothing to your sentence, but (as with Mr Huhne) is likely in due course be relevant to the issue of costs.

Source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...udges-sentencing-remarks-in-full-8530059.html