Chris Huhne changes plea to guilty

[NicholasTeakozy]

BBC link here. I reckon that's the end of his political career then.

\link{http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-secretary-chris-huhne-divorced-by-wife-2181647.html\they are divorced} (2 years ago)

(that was decree nisi, I assume it was completed later?)

so he could be compelled to testify

I agree with pan that the prosecution might not want to call Huhne. He wouldn't be the best witness under cross examination, would he?

Also, the onus is on her to prove her 'defence' of coercion. Why would the prosecution even dream of putting up someone who could support that?

I wonder if their children might forgive him if he were to 'fess up and admit that he did co-erce her, thus letting her off the hook. He's in trouble anyway - how much worse would it be?

well, he wouldn't support it, would he, Pan

but nobody would believe a word he said, whatever he said

so not much point really

@ termination - I shudder to think what the circumstance of that decision were.

My DH just said she sounded 'unhinged' on those phone calls attempting to entrap him (she was rather crap, wasn't she?) - I think it is one of those inherently unfair things how an agitated, upset woman easily sounds a bit 'hysterical' because her voice goes up and gets faster (I am terrible for that, and I hate that).

I still maintain that the whole situation makes them both rather undignified and cringeworthy tbh.
We have decided that he is a Prick with a prick and she is a Prick without a prick - sorry, has been taken

'makes them look rather'

Oh he could Ponders Imagine the scene where he is being twisted in knots by the defence barristers, and he forgets his sense of propriety and humility and shouts "No I didn't coerce the deluded old trout!"
Whoops!

Coercing someone to commit the serious crime of perverting the course of justice? I think claiming that would make things quite a lot worse for him.

Even if he liked her, I can't see him going for that. And he clearly hates her guts.

Looks like they'll be able reconcile over a bowl of porridge soon though.

Why would the prosecution even dream of putting up someone who could support that?

Could ?

Because the jury may be understandably suspicious of a prosecution case which does not contain Huhne's account.
It just doesn't "taste" right.

Huhne's trial is over.

Cumfy - the prosecution's case has already been established. She perverted the course of justice. They don't need Huhne for their case. If anyone has a need for Huhne it would be VP's defence of coercion.

Pan, they are the only two people who knew exactly what went on.

Clearly, both Huhne and Vicky's account are vital in coming to a determination on the issue of coercion.

but inevitably they will contradict each other, cumfy

she will say he coerced her

he will say she agreed to do it

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

I am not convinced that Vicky Price is the sort of woman who would be that easy to co-erce

Though what Huhne saw in that other woman he is now with is anyones guess

agreed willingly, I mean

Yes, of course, but that's an issue for the defence side to show coercion, not prosecution. They have established she is guilty of perverting. Done.

Prosecution aren't going to offer the one person who could support her defence of coercion.

well I did think that too, amothersplace

but having listened to those phone calls, I'm not so sure.

whatever her previous professional standing, he is clearly a very domineering man & quite capable of rolling right over any attempt to resist his wishes

Indeed. Not at all clear what she ever would have seen in him.

The Times report is interesting too. Apparently he has never apologised for his affair ever and if VP was to appear ton TV etc he would say she knew nothing. This kind of allegedly bullying spouse is just the kind who effects this type of coercion. They probably as a family are very lucky to be free of him.

Its hard to understand the power an EA bully can have in a family until you've lived with it.

His initial lie led to a situation where she either had to devastate her kids and family by refusing to go along with it or go along with it and preserve the status quo. She was probably habituated into doing what he said - that's how EA works.

All my sympathy is with her tbh.

I imagine the bar for proving marital coercion is very high, so the onus is on the defence to do all the work.

It wouldn't be a good idea for the prosecution to call Huhne, as he's a proven liar and therefore not a credible witness. The only kind of witness I could imagine them calling would be someone who was prepared to say that Pryce was a hard-headed, independent-minded woman who was not the type to allow herself to be bullied by her husband. But I can't imagine they'd be able to find someone who was prepared to say that in a court of law. So it makes sense for them just to wait and see what the defence witnesses say and then give them a hard time under cross-examination.

Huhne did promise his son that he wouldn't let VP go to jail for taking the points for him. On that basis you'd think he'd now be busting a gut to support her coercion claim whatever the cost to him - so his son knows that despite being a lying self-serving loser, he can actually still be a trusted father in some aspects.

If he had a spine.
And ever told the truth of course.

Oh!

Apparently she held out for 2 weeks over the points. Has anyone looked into whether his PA or whoever whom VP says she thinks took earlier points for Huhne actually did so? Then he must have returned the form saying she was the driver and then presented it as a done deal, sign here otherwise our lives are ruined and I will not get my seat in the UK Parliament and instead be working as an MEP with all that travel etc. No one unless they have lived in these types of relationships can understand the way women (it is usually women) are made to feel in them.