Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

[anglolawyer]

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

The judge on Huhne:



On Pryce:





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

Good quotes but I am sticking to my guns. I wonder whether the jury would agree with the judge's version of their thinking. They should not have been considering her controlling, manipulative or devious behaviour etc but only whether her will was overborne by Hughes in 2003. Whether it was or not (they found not) no part of her conduct was controlling etc. They were entitled to find she was not under his control by reason of her manifest intelligence, maturity, independence of mind and education and nothing whatever do to with these value-laden pejorative and irrelevant remarks, all of which, if applicable at all, could equally have been said about Huhne but none of which were.

The judge was not (or should not have been) sentencing her for trying to get the story into the press. His remarks were gratuitous and, this is the point of the letter we are discussing, discriminatory since he did not so characterise Huhne even though his behaviour, both with respect to the offence itself and subsequently properly merited the adjectives in question.

 

[Sunstealer]

Good quotes but I am sticking to my guns.

Quotes are quotes. They are neither good nor bad. Simply a matter of record.

I picked those out because they were the most relevant to the conversation at hand; namely the question of whether the judge's remarks were biased toward a participant on gender grounds and whether those remarks had any effect upon length of sentence.

I wonder whether the jury would agree with the judge's version of their thinking.

That is neither here nor there. The jury's duty was to find for or against the defendant based upon evidence presented in court. The judge is independent and does not consult the jury for tips on sentencing remarks.

They should not have been considering her controlling, manipulative or devious behaviour etc but only whether her will was overborne by Hughes in 2003.

They did. Why are you remarking upon what they should or shouldn't have done when that has no bearing on the judges remarks, which is ultimately what you are complaining about?

I've not mentioned the jury in any argument - their decision is not part of the argument regarding the judge's remarks.

Whether it was or not (they found not) no part of her conduct was controlling etc. They were entitled to find she was not under his control by reason of her manifest intelligence, maturity, independence of mind and education and nothing whatever do to with these value-laden pejorative and irrelevant remarks, all of which, if applicable at all, could equally have been said about Huhne but none of which were.

That again is neither here nor there. Huhne was not under trial with the same jury.

The judge was not (or should not have been) sentencing her for trying to get the story into the press.

I never said that and the judge didn't. It is explicitly stated. I've quoted the relevant part regarding sentencing, which quite categorically states that her defence had no bearing on the length nor type (custodial/uncustodial) of sentence. Read his remarks in full. I have provided them. I don't understand why you continue with this misnomer regarding the judge basing her sentence with regard to any story in the press. He didn't.

His remarks were gratuitous...

in your opinion.

...and,this is the point of the letter we are discussing,

It is, but you seem to continually introduce factors that do not apply, such as the jury's opinion, as well as ignore or disregard the judges remarks against Huhne which are just as pointed. (I'm in no way defending Huhne in this regard.)

The remarks are on record for all to read. If you or any one else regard the judges remarks to be gratuitous then there are appropriate channels with which to make a formal complaint.

Carping in the Guardian newspaper to a feminist agenda is simply a par for the course, but not applicable.

discriminatory since he did not so characterise Huhne even though his behaviour, both with respect to the offence itself and subsequently propeArly merited the adjectives in question.

In your opinoin which doesn't matter. He did have a go at Huhne. Read the statement in full. Just because he didn't characterise Huhne in exactly the same fashion, doesn't mean to say that he didn't condone him to the same extent.

I don't think that the judges remarks, given the full context that I have provided, are preferential toward one guilty party or the other.

I think you are seeing an injustice were there is none. I'm not going to engage you further on this matter, because I don't think that there is any benefit to anyone. I'll leave it as a matter of record.

 

[anglolawyer]

'Injustice'? Who said anything about that?

The point made in the letter is a fair one. She got criticised for sexist reasons. All the things he said about her applied to Huhne as much or more.

 

[Rolfe]

Not in my opinion. I think he was a straightforward lying toad. He straightforwardly weaselled out of speeding points by a straightforwardly common method, then when he was unmasked he simply and straightforwardly lied in his teeth and went on lying in his teeth in the hope that something would turn up. When it didn't, he caved.

She on the other hand makes a corkscrew look straight. Oh and her wiring was jumbled, the storms in her heart were flooded, yeah right.

I don't think this criticism is sexist at all. I think each has been criticised for what they did, and of the two Vicky was by far the more devious and twisted.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not in my opinion. I think he was a straightforward lying toad. He straightforwardly weaselled out of speeding points by a straightforwardly common method, then when he was unmasked he simply and straightforwardly lied in his teeth and went on lying in his teeth in the hope that something would turn up. When it didn't, he caved.

She on the other hand makes a corkscrew look straight. Oh and her wiring was jumbled, the storms in her heart were flooded, yeah right.

I don't think this criticism is sexist at all. I think each has been criticised for what they did, and of the two Vicky was by far the more devious and twisted.

Rolfe.

Yes, he relied on the simple sword of truth, lied to the prime minister, tried to get his son's texts excluded, faced the whole thing down until the last minute fully knowing he was guilty. Ha ha. Whatever, I shall save this up until the next time a judge does the same thing. It won't be too long. Women generally get a raw deal in our criminal courts.

 

[Rolfe]

I never said that what he did was any less reprehensible than what she did. Clearly it wasn't. However, in comparison with her little schemes, it was straightforward.

Hell mend the pair of them, and I think they both got their just deserts.

Rolfe.

 

[Agatha]

Huhne got an 11% discount off what would have been nine months, Pryce got no discount, therefore 8 months each. Like Rolfe, I think there is little to choose between them in terms of manipulating the proceedings as much as they could, but Pryce put the Crown to the expense of two trials*, and the judge is always going to be harsher in his sentencing remarks towards someone who has denied their guilt throughout.

*I recognise she is only responsible for one trial; the other is entirely the fault of one or more completely moronic jurors.

I read that there may be an appeal against the sentences by the prosecution as being unduly lenient http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21775519 towards the end of the report.

Still, it's all yesterday's fish and chip paper, now that Eric Joyce has grabbed the headlines with his second bust-up in a Commons bar. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21800097

 

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, yes. I don't suppose Mr. Brass Neck will resign his seat though. He has a seat on the gravy train till 2015 and it looks as if he intends to carry right on troughing.

You have to get at least a 12-month sentence to have a Commons seat forcibly taken from you, and like Huhne, I doubt if he'll get that. (Huhne at least had the decency to resign his seat.)

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

You guys are as bad as the judge! Huhne is an arrogant, hypocriticial POS who sanctimoniously accepted responsibility for 'something that happened 10 years ago' (translation: none of this is my fault but I am nobly placing myself in the line of fire in an act of heroic self-sacrifice). Fine. She is a vengeful bitch. I get that, but he told her he was having an affair at half time in a world cup match then packed a bag - 'are you moving out?' she asked. 'No. I'm going to the gym'. LOL

 

[Rolfe]

Sure. She is a devious vengeful bitch. He is a straightforward-as-a-bull-in-a-china-shop arrogant hypocritical PoS.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sure. She is a devious vengeful bitch. He is a straightforward-as-a-bull-in-a-china-shop arrogant hypocritical PoS.

Rolfe.

But it was devious of him to pass his points over to her. His idea, not hers. So he was devious too. This is the only point I am making. This deviousness was the judge's business. The deviousness by which she sought to expose him was not his business. Yet she got this epithet (and others) but he didn't.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But it was devious of him to pass his points over to her. His idea, not hers. So he was devious too. This is the only point I am making. This deviousness was the judge's business. The deviousness by which she sought to expose him was not his business. Yet she got this epithet (and others) but he didn't.

Unless you consider that she was devious in making up a defence that she was coerced into taking the points as an attempt to bring him down without accepting responsibility for her own actions.

 

[anglolawyer]

Unless you consider that she was devious in making up a defence that she was coerced into taking the points as an attempt to bring him down without accepting responsibility for her own actions.

I fully accept she was devious. I am not arguing about that. I am supporting the observation made by Rolfe's acquaintance in a letter to the Guardian that the judge was discriminatory in applying that and other pejoratives to her alone. The deviousness he was referring to, I think, concerned the way she tried to get the story into the press while keeping herself in the clear.

Tell you what, he could have said 'vengeful' and then I'd have no quarrel since she was and he wasn't - but they were both devious. The writer's point was that sexism accounted for what he said and that chimes with me in this context. Sexism remains alive and well in the upper reaches of the judiciary.

 

[malicus]

I fully accept she was devious. I am not arguing about that. I am supporting the observation made by Rolfe's acquaintance in a letter to the Guardian that the judge was discriminatory in applying that and other pejoratives to her alone. The deviousness he was referring to, I think, concerned the way she tried to get the story into the press while keeping herself in the clear.

Tell you what, he could have said 'vengeful' and then I'd have no quarrel since she was and he wasn't - but they were both devious. The writer's point was that sexism accounted for what he said and that chimes with me in this context. Sexism remains alive and well in the upper reaches of the judiciary.

I was all set to bang out a rebuttal until I stumbled across a definition of devious as "not sincere or candid; deceitful; underhand". Fair enough, though "arrogant tosser" sums him up better.

Pryce certainly warrants the label of 'devious' as routinely interpreted as having a 'master plan', vengeful / spiteful certainly fits too.

So, yeah, your points are well taken.

 

[anglolawyer]

I was all set to bang out a rebuttal until I stumbled across a definition of devious as "not sincere or candid; deceitful; underhand". Fair enough, though "arrogant tosser" sums him up better.

Pryce certainly warrants the label of 'devious' as routinely interpreted as having a 'master plan', vengeful / spiteful certainly fits too.

So, yeah, your points are well taken.

And if the judge is allowed to step outside the confines of the crime itself in venting his personal opinions, what about Huhne's deviousness in carrying on a secret affair with Trimingham while pretending to his wife and the world he was a happily married man? Maybe she wouldn't have been such a 'devious bitch' if he hadn't been such a two-timing, hypocritical swine first. But, as I keep saying, and as the judge said himself, they get sentenced for the crime they committed not the conduct afterwards which is none of the judge's business.

 

[Rolfe]

I think we're playing semantics with the word "devious", and I'm not sure it's particularly productive. Anglolawyer is working on a rather different concept of "devious" from the one I'm using, and it's pretty sterile to keep arguing about it.

I just think that from my point of view, and maybe the judge was viewing it in a similar manner, her wheeze to ruin him by shopping him for a decade-old crime she had collaborated in, while trying to escape culpability herself by various underhand schemes, was just that bit more twisted than the fairly obvious ploys he indulged in.

And women who shout "sexism!" when that really isn't obvious at all, get on my nerves. Even when they are certified 24-carat musical geniuses.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think we're playing semantics with the word "devious", and I'm not sure it's particularly productive. Anglolawyer is working on a rather different concept of "devious" from the one I'm using, and it's pretty sterile to keep arguing about it.

I just think that from my point of view, and maybe the judge was viewing it in a similar manner, her wheeze to ruin him by shopping him for a decade-old crime she had collaborated in, while trying to escape culpability herself by various underhand schemes, was just that bit more twisted than the fairly obvious ploys he indulged in.

And women who shout "sexism!" when that really isn't obvious at all, get on my nerves. Even when they are certified 24-carat musical geniuses.

Rolfe.

If it's sterile to keep arguing about it then why ... Oh, never mind. How many meanings of 'devious' are there btw? And don't forget 'controlling' and 'manipulative'. It's like calling the Germans 'efficient' or Italians 'cowardly' It's a negative stereotype that got applied to her just because she is a woman.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I fully accept she was devious. I am not arguing about that. I am supporting the observation made by Rolfe's acquaintance in a letter to the Guardian that the judge was discriminatory in applying that and other pejoratives to her alone. The deviousness he was referring to, I think, concerned the way she tried to get the story into the press while keeping herself in the clear.

Tell you what, he could have said 'vengeful' and then I'd have no quarrel since she was and he wasn't - but they were both devious. The writer's point was that sexism accounted for what he said and that chimes with me in this context. Sexism remains alive and well in the upper reaches of the judiciary.

The difference being that if that is her defence he was referring to then she was devious during the trial, which Huhne was not, as he pled guilty at the last minute. It would therefore not be sexist to observe that one party being sentenced had been devious during the proceedings while not commenting on the other, who had not.

 

[anglolawyer]

The difference being that if that is her defence he was referring to then she was devious during the trial, which Huhne was not, as he pled guilty at the last minute. It would therefore not be sexist to observe that one party being sentenced had been devious during the proceedings while not commenting on the other, who had not.

Was she controlling and manipulative during the trial too? I think the judge's remarks concerned her dealings with the press when trying to get the story published. I already said - the judge had no way of knowing the basis for the jury's rejection of her defence. For all he knew they may have been sympathetic but unpersuaded that what she described amounted to marital coercion in the legal sense.

 

[Darat]

Was she controlling and manipulative during the trial too? I think the judge's remarks concerned her dealings with the press when trying to get the story published. I already said - the judge had no way of knowing the basis for the jury's rejection of her defence. For all he knew they may have been sympathetic but unpersuaded that what she described amounted to marital coercion in the legal sense.

Part of the role of the judge is to sum up the case and then pass judgement. For all we know he may have instructed the jury with something like "if you consider that the prosecution has established that she was controlling and manipulative...."?

Without knowing a lot more detail I don't think we can really reach the conclusion that the judge's remarks were inappropriate. And we certainly can't reach the conclusion that his remarks arose because of either explicit or "institutional" sexism. (ETA) After all we know there were legal reasons why the parties would be treated differently based on the case actually in front of the judge and jury i.e. one pleaded guilty, the other innocent. Using that fellow with the cut throat razor's adage - the explanation that requires the least assumptions is that the difference we know about explains why the comments in the judgement were different.