Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

I was harsher than the judge :o Apparently Huhne would have got nine months had it not been for his last minute guilty plea, so he got 11% off, or 10% rounded to the nearest whole month. The CPS are pursuing costs too.

I imagine that prison overcrowding will be a handy excuse to release both of them at about the two-to-three month mark, on a tag and with weekly meetings with Probation.
 
Well, whether they spend only a short time in prison or not, they are going to prison. I don't think there's much point in making innuendo-laden remarks about how they're bound to get a preferential treatment or a little leeway here and there.

I wonder how long either of them will actually spend behind bars?

According to what I read over the weekend, about half with good behaviour. Most of the time will be served in an open prison.

I imagine that prison overcrowding will be a handy excuse to release both of them at about the two-to-three month mark, on a tag and with weekly meetings with Probation.

Is there any reason for thinking that they are getting off lightly?
 
My post was merely intended as a general commentary on the discrepancy between the sentence as pronounced and the actual time spent in chokey, for anyone. I'm not quarrelling with the sentence - not being an expert, it doesn't seem self-evidently wrong to me.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Not really. If anything, Huhne's position as a lawmaker has contributed to the length of his sentence and Pryce's sentence has followed his as the judge(s) could not be seen as giving either of them a pass on PCoJ, and Huhne had to get a discount for that guilty plea.

They will be treated better than some prisoners in that they will almost certainly be allowed to wear their own clothes, have a radio and TV in their cells, be allowed to bring some home comforts (like curtains) and might not be forced to attend work or education. The normal protocol here is that people serve half their sentence behind bars and are then released on an electronic tag (which enforces a curfew at a specific address between 7pm and 7am). Because our prisons are overcrowded, some prisoners are released earlier than the half-way mark, and it is likely that Huhne and Pryce will fall into this group.

Huhne is serving time in Wandsworth prison, which is a category B jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_security_categories_in_the_United_Kingdom Pryce is spending tonight in Holloway prison, which is a closed category prison. In both cases, the category is slightly higher than might have been expected. Neither of them are likely to escape (given their notoriety) so there would be a case for both of them being sent to an open (for Pryce) and a cat D (for Huhne) prison. They may well both be transferred to lower category prisons in the fullness of time.

As PCoJ can carry a life sentence, the eight month sentences might be seen as lenient. But in practice, anything over six months was probably more than they were expecting.
 
I don't see how it is even possible to take another driver's demerit points. Surely the cop would be able to tell that the driver was using the wrong licence, the photos wouldn't match? In this case its a man and a woman. Could the cop not tell the difference?
 
The offence was caught on a speed camera, smartcooky, not a roadside stop. The cameras generally take a picture of the rear of the vehicle and the photos don't always make it obvious who is the driver. Once the picture is taken, the registered keeper of the vehicle receives a letter through the post inviting them to take a £60 fine fine plus three points as an alternative to court; the RK can nominate another driver who then gets their own letter. If they then admit to speeding and take the offer of £60 & 3 pts, no further action will be taken.

In this case, someone owned up to the speeding so the safety camera partnership need not have bothered to look at the photographs to determine if it was the 'right' person.
 
I don't see how it is even possible to take another driver's demerit points. Surely the cop would be able to tell that the driver was using the wrong licence, the photos wouldn't match? In this case its a man and a woman. Could the cop not tell the difference?

It came from a photograph of the rear of the car taken by a speed camera, from what I understand. They weren't pulled over so there was no arresting cop there.
 
Oh my Gawd! I've just read that Vicky Pryce is now in a relationship with another MP, Dennis Macshane. Jesus! She certainly knows how to pick them. Oh well, at least if he gets convicted for fiddling expenses they can spend time in jail together.
 
The offence was caught on a speed camera, smartcooky, not a roadside stop. The cameras generally take a picture of the rear of the vehicle and the photos don't always make it obvious who is the driver. Once the picture is taken, the registered keeper of the vehicle receives a letter through the post inviting them to take a £60 fine fine plus three points as an alternative to court; the RK can nominate another driver who then gets their own letter. If they then admit to speeding and take the offer of £60 & 3 pts, no further action will be taken.

Aha, that explains it. In New Zealand, you can't get demerit points from an offence caught on speed camera, because there is no way to positively prove who was behind the wheel.
 
Aha, that explains it. In New Zealand, you can't get demerit points from an offence caught on speed camera, because there is no way to positively prove who was behind the wheel.
Here, legislation provides that the RK must state who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. If the speed is within certain tolerances, the person who was driving has the choice to take a small-ish punishment in lieu of court action.

Dennis McShane? :jaw-dropp from one jailbird to a bloke who ought to be jailed for his expenses, she sure can pick 'em.
 
Aha, that explains it. In New Zealand, you can't get demerit points from an offence caught on speed camera, because there is no way to positively prove who was behind the wheel.
Then what on earth is the point of speed cameras?
 
Dennis McShane? :jaw-dropp from one jailbird to a bloke who ought to be jailed for his expenses, she sure can pick 'em.

Hmm how employable is an economist with a criminal record?
 
Dennis McShane? :jaw-dropp from one jailbird to a bloke who ought to be jailed for his expenses, she sure can pick 'em.

Probably just an artifact of the westminster village effect.
 
I'm still reeling from this comment in the BBC article this morning.

Journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a friend of Pryce, said she thought the media's treatment of her had been sexist. "Too many people haven't realised how the loss of love, her wiring was jumbled, the storms in her heart were flooded," she said.

"She is the most extraordinarily gifted, sane, stable woman, but love unhinged her. It was just 'why didn't she go away quietly?' This society has no time for raging betrayed wives."


Words fail me.

Rolfe.
 
They will be treated better than some prisoners in that they will almost certainly be allowed to wear their own clothes, have a radio and TV in their cells, be allowed to bring some home comforts (like curtains) and might not be forced to attend work or education.The normal protocol here is that people serve half their sentence behind bars and are then released on an electronic tag (which enforces a curfew at a specific address between 7pm and 7am). Because our prisons are overcrowded, some prisoners are released earlier than the half-way mark, and it is likely that Huhne and Pryce will fall into this group.
The highlighted part is utter rubbish. No they will not be treated differently at all.

1. All prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothes as long as they are not on the basic regime or on an escape risk regime where they have to wear a blue and yellow "Harlequin" sweater and bottoms . (Higher category prisons may not allow it and anyone classified as a high escape risk while transferring prisons or attending court). Prisoners are allowed a certain amount of personal clothing which is recorded on their property card. They may have more than the allowed amount, so the extra is stored at the prison reception.

2. TV and radio. TV is automatically in every cell. The prisoner pays towards the cost at a rate of 50p per week if sharing a cell and £1 a week if in a single cell. The 5 basic terrestrial channels are provided and now that the digital switch-over is complete an additional 4 or 5 channels are supplementary at the governor's discretion.

There are 3 levels of classification in terms of behaviour and privileges; basic, standard and enhanced. Everyone starts on standard. That entitles the prisoner to a TV. Other equipment allowed will be found on the list for each classification and prison. A radio in this case will be allowed by all prisoners who are standard or enhanced. If on basic a TV is not allowed unless sharing a cell with a prisoner who is still on the standard or enhanced regime.

3. Home comforts like curtains. Nope - bedding has to be approved by the governor and conform to fire and safety standards, same with curtains etc.

This may well change in a D-cat, but if they want such comforts then they will only be able to purchase them from an approved supplier, not bring them from home.

4. Work. They are convicted and are therefore required to work or do education. If they refuse to work then they will be put onto a basic regime with loss of privileges.

They will go through all the same procedures as anyone else. It's likely that Huhne will be categorised as a D catagory prisoner and therefore moved to a D-cat prison (open prison) although lower category prisoners can be housed in higher category prisons.

Release dates.
2. Early Release Back to top


2.1 Home detention curfew (HDC) Back to top


The details are laid out in PSO 6700. Home Detention Curfew came into effect on 28 January 1999, having been passed into law by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 set out the HDC provisions.

Eligibility for HDC is subject to satisfactory risk assessment and suitable accommodation approved by the Probation Service.

Sentence length and required time to be served:

3 months or more but less then 4 months 30 days
4 months or more but less then 8 months one quarter of sentence 8 months or more, but less than 4 years half of sentence minus 60 days
HDC and the ‘presumption of unsuitability’

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) made a considerable impact on the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme. The HDC provisions under Part 12, Chapter 6 of the CJA 2003 apply to all prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or more in respect of offences committed on or after 4 April 2005. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (CJA 1991) continues to govern the eligibility for HDC for all other prisoners.

Early release on HDC is not an entitlement and will only be granted where the prisoner meets the eligibility criteria and passes a risk assessment. Reports are prepared for the HDC Board at your establishment to consider when making a recommendation as to whether you should be released on tag. The recommendation will then be brought to the attention of the Governor (or Comptroller) who will have the final decision..........

http://www.unlock.org.uk/xoffenders.aspx?sid=116

There is more info at that page, I just haven't cut and pasted it due to forum rules. I've highlighted the relevant part regarding possible release dates.

Therefore the earliest Huhne can be released on HDC is half sentence minus 60 days. Works out at 2 months. (although so does 1/4 of 8 months).

That doesn't mean it's automatic, but the likelihood is that is what will happen.
 
Last edited:
I'm still reeling from this comment in the BBC article this morning.




Words fail me.

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"?
 
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.
 
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.

Well, I think they're just going to slag each other as much as they are given the opportunity to in the press and, of course, the press will want to hear more because, of course, we want to read more.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom