Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

[The Don]

IMHO the coercion defence is really a (possible) mitigating circumstance, which would affect sentencing -- not absolve one of guilt.

If it really is the case that statute has a 'my husband made me do it' clause, it's probably time to get rid of that. Hey, let's have it added as an amendment to the gay marriage bill!

No, apparently it's an anachronism that can get you off entirely.

Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_coercion

You're right it should go. A recommendation to that effect was made a mere 36 years ago.

 

[anglolawyer]

He must be looking at the jury questions and wondering why he didn't throw the dice and hope to get off.

He had a problem that, short of perjury, he couldn't offer any defence once it was proved he was the driver. Jeffrey Archer (another miscreant politician) got 4 years for that.

 

[anglolawyer]

I say devious bitch because she waited until she really, really had it in for him before coming clean with the story. I mean, ten years? This wasn't done to right a wrong, this was done for the express purpose of bringing him down.

Also, all the emails and so on between her and the journalist, planning it all, and discussing her chances of getting away with it, don't help. If she had approached the police at an earlier stage saying that her conscience impelled her to speak the truth now she was separated from her controlling husband, it might have looked better. This way, not so much.

Hell hath no fury, and all that.
Rolfe.

In spades! What a drama.

 

[Nessie]

...... dates from 1925 when men were men and wives waited at home with the slippers and pipe. .........

Thankfully times have changed and women will now go out and work instead of lounging around all day smoking.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

He had a problem that, short of perjury, he couldn't offer any defence once it was proved he was the driver. Jeffrey Archer (another miscreant politician) got 4 years for that.

He didn't need to say anything. Just go for a not guilty plea and see what the jury decide to invent out of thin air. One of the questions being:

"Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?"

And Archer did a bit more than deny in court he had committed a crime. His perjury convictions were for conspiring to create a false alibi and using a falsified diary as evidence in a court case

 

[Nessie]

Since rampant speculation is permissible in an internet thread, I'm going to speculate that there was one opinionated fruitcake in that jury, and that he (or maybe just possibly she) was vocal and persistent enough to drag a couple of other dimwits with him.

Rolfe.

That was what crossed my mind as well. I pictured one or more asking really stupid questions, others on the jury face palming when those questions were put to the Judge and they are now seething as to what a complete waste of time the past couple of weeks have been.

The reports of what the Judge has said

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...yce-trial-after-failing-to-reach-verdict.html

"fundamental deficits of understanding"

"The jury reached deadlock after sending the judge three separate notes containing 10 questions which suggested they were “struggling” with the most “basic concept” of trial by jury."

and "Quite apart from my concern about the absolute fundamental deficits of understanding which the questions demonstrate I wonder [given that the answer] is all there and has been there the whole time the extent to which anything said by me is going to be capable of getting them back on track again. “I am like Mr Edis in the position that after 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this late stage. Never.”

suggests there may have been more than one numpty. This question beggars belief

"Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?”

Thankfully the Judge has given up with that lot and sent them home.

 

[anglolawyer]

He didn't need to say anything. Just go for a not guilty plea and see what the jury decide to invent out of thin air. One of the questions being:

"Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?"

And Archer did a bit more than deny in court he had committed a crime. His perjury convictions were for conspiring to create a false alibi and using a falsified diary as evidence in a court case

Well, you may have a point. I guess after he failed to get his son's texts excluded he figured there was no way the jury was going to buy it. That prompts the thought - maybe he will appeal that ruling. Archer was convicted of perjury because he lied on oath. That's what perjury is.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well, you may have a point. I guess after he failed to get his son's texts excluded he figured there was no way the jury was going to buy it. That prompts the thought - maybe he will appeal that ruling. Archer was convicted of perjury because he lied on oath. That's what perjury is.

Apologies - was getting his perverting the course of justice convictions mixed up with his perjury convictions. Of course Huhne would not have needed to give evidence under oath.

Position he was in was that no reasonable jury could fail to convict based on evidence that was admissible. Little did he know that some of the actual jury don't appear to have been either reasonable or basing decisions on evidence in court.

Not sure he has grounds to appeal a ruling given he has now pled guilty?

 

[anglolawyer]

Apologies - was getting his perverting the course of justice convictions mixed up with his perjury convictions. Of course Huhne would not have needed to give evidence under oath.

Position he was in was that no reasonable jury could fail to convict based on evidence that was admissible. Little did he know that some of the actual jury don't appear to have been either reasonable or basing decisions on evidence in court.

Not sure he has grounds to appeal a ruling given he has now pled guilty?

I think he can, certainly, and in fact it may be a clever strategy. He is entitled to take the view that with the text evidence there is enough but without it there isn't and to argue on appeal:

a) the evidence should have been excluded in which case he would have contested the charge, for which there was insufficient evidence and (this is the clever part)
b) now that evidence has been heard and widely publicised he can never have a fair trial so the case cannot be remitted for re-trial.

It's the same where the judge makes a legal ruling e.g. relating to the definition of the offence. It might dictate a guilty plea on the facts but leave open an appeal on the ruling such that the accused might have had a bais for defending.

Btw. did Archer also go down for conspiracy etc? Makes sense. I have forgotten that.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think he can, certainly, and in fact it may be a clever strategy. He is entitled to take the view that with the text evidence there is enough but without it there isn't and to argue on appeal:

a) the evidence should have been excluded in which case he would have contested the charge, for which there was insufficient evidence and (this is the clever part)
b) now that evidence has been heard and widely publicised he can never have a fair trial so the case cannot be remitted for re-trial.

It's the same where the judge makes a legal ruling e.g. relating to the definition of the offence. It might dictate a guilty plea on the facts but leave open an appeal on the ruling such that the accused might have had a bais for defending.

Btw. did Archer also go down for conspiracy etc? Makes sense. I have forgotten that.

Archer was two each of perjury and perverting the course of justice. Was acquired on a further perverting charge. Got 2 and 4 years on the perverting charges and 3 and 4 years on the perjury ones, all concurrent. The perjury charges related to his testimony/actions in the original libel trial, didn't take the stand in the criminal one.

On the Huhne point, does he not have a problem in that he admitted doing what he was accused of? Appeal would basically be saying "I did it but you wouldn't have been able to prove it".

 

[MikeG]

IBtw. did Archer also go down for conspiracy etc? Makes sense. I have forgotten that.

My suspect memory tells me it was for perjury.

edit.....told you it was suspect! Perjury and perverting the course of justice, according to Wiki.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This question beggars belief

"Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?”

It would be an idiotic question if it were written by someone who wanted to do that.

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.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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.

Not sure but it may be "committing an act intended to pervert the course of justice".

 

[nathan]

b) now that evidence has been heard and widely publicised he can never have a fair trial so the case cannot be remitted for re-trial.

I remember when this started and they were both making many media statements that I thought they were intentionally poisoning the jury pool so a fair trial would be difficult.

ETA: I think a legally trained forumite indicated such an attempt would fail -- you can't poison the jury pool of your own trial that way.

 

[anglolawyer]

Archer was two each of perjury and perverting the course of justice. Was acquired on a further perverting charge. Got 2 and 4 years on the perverting charges and 3 and 4 years on the perjury ones, all concurrent. The perjury charges related to his testimony/actions in the original libel trial, didn't take the stand in the criminal one.

On the Huhne point, does he not have a problem in that he admitted doing what he was accused of? Appeal would basically be saying "I did it but you wouldn't have been able to prove it".

Yes, but (I think) if the decisive evidence has been wrongly ruled admissible when it should have been ruled out then he didn't have a fair trial. What if, say, the cops beat a confession out of him and the judge allowed the confession evidence anyway and that was all there was? Just on basic principles that should be appealable. The burden is always on the crown to prove the case using lawful means. And the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right (or whatever it's called) under the HRA.

Thanks for the correction on Archer. I thought he just got four years for P.

 

[anglolawyer]

I remember when this started and they were both making many media statements that I thought they were intentionally poisoning the jury pool so a fair trial would be difficult.

Very possible. I expect the judge can take stuff like that into account if asked to dismiss because a fair trial is no longer possible.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Good question. Without looking it up, one can see why your QC might be right because (just guessing without trying to work this out) if there were an offence of perverting the course of justice it would be impossible to convict as the accused could say, 'well, you've caught me now, so I failed!'

I'm serious.

 

[nathan]

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.

I think that's the case in England too. However, if you did actually PtCoJ, and were then convicted of attempting to PtCoJ, I can quite easily see non-pedantic descriptions of your conviction being for PtCoJ not APtCoJ.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yes, but (I think) if the decisive evidence has been wrongly ruled admissible when it should have been ruled out then he didn't have a fair trial. What if, say, the cops beat a confession out of him and the judge allowed the confession evidence anyway and that was all there was? Just on basic principles that should be appealable. The burden is always on the crown to prove the case using lawful means. And the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right (or whatever it's called) under the HRA.

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.