Chris Huhne changes plea to guilty

[NicholasTeakozy]

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

Sorry to go back to what had been discussed towards the beginning of the thread (a full day at work and no opportunity to keep up with MN - outrageous, I know!):
Surely Huhne having had 9 points on his licence already, all for speeding, when his car was caught speeding again, is the first overt sign of his deep-seated arrogance: I am more important than the plebs, the usual rules don't apply to me, I need to be places and do things.
He could have taken them, taken a driving ban, got a driver (he could have afforded that and get the tax-relief on expenses), but didn't - arrogance.
Then get his then-wife to take the points - arrogance
His whole rhetoric since he was rumbled in 2011 - arrogance

He is a Prize Knob, not an honest knob - he is an insult to all honest knobs IMO.
It makes me very angry that those of you who said he will have an easier life than every other 'normal' ex-con once released (provided he gets the expected custodial sentence) are of course right. He'll end up sitting on some board or two, or act as a 'consultant' or summat.

I am finding it really hard to get a handle on Vicky Pryce - successful, clearly intelligent woman. It is hard to imagine why she would have agreed to this horse trade at the time unless coerced, non?
As I said above, I just wish she had not outed him as a woman scorned, but had done the Right Thing without such an obvious motive.

And yes, why oh why do all these women agree to sleep with him?? I just don't see it...

I can see the thread: "Chris Huhne. Woodya?"

"He is a Prize Knob, not an honest knob - he is an insult to all honest knobs"

ROFL

Fabulous précis of CH!!

Pan, gawn, start that thread, I dare you

Would ya ?

Fuck, no. He's got a weak chin. It's always a bad sign.

YOU.MUST.BE.KIDDING. PD.

I'm too chicken

can we joke about that yet?

Oooh, Pan, are you on your best behaviour?
Well, I can joke about it - I wasn't involved

Yy re weak chin. And that shiny, shiny face you only get from years of entitlement

Well, yes, speaking as a hetro man....He wouldn't be the one to turn me. Weak chin, thin lips and a really awful taste in ties.

He would be the one to turn me

To turn your stomach, AF.

He's still not as shiny as Shiny Dave.

Who managed to miss the gay marriage debate.

That too, Pan.

His lover who apparently had been a lesbian in a civil partnership works in PR. When she tried to get something stopped in court she failed. She had to admit in court she had sold stories to the press so could hardly seek privacy for herself.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9287136/Chris-Huhnes-lover-loses-privacy-case.html

By the way it's a very good read if anyone has time www.documentcloud.org/documents/359439-trimingham-v-assoc-news-ltd.html#document/p2

What a twisted web they weave....

Gotta trip 'em up evenchooally

All bubbles eventually burst. Not usually so publically. How on earth do these people sustain trusting attachments to other people?

Yeah, well, Shiny Dave is another one of that ilk - entitled, I mean, not necessarily dishonest

I think CH is actually astonished that he has been tripped up, being held up to take the consequences of his actions - don't we know who is IS??

Very interesting second link, Xenia. (Although I only skim read it, and then only the first third. ) Revealing re the source of the Calamity Clegg dossier.

Shiny Dave caught out again, lying about the growing debt and deficit. So please don't malign his character, he can't lie straight in bed.

To me, "coercion" suggests someone pointing a gun at your head. I'm not a lawyer, but I think if you are a capable, functioning adult you would normally be held responsible for your own actions. Apparently marital coercion was used as a defence in the case of the wife of the canoe man, and was unsuccessful.

(Am trying to keep this general and not relating it to the specifics of this case.)

"The defence is contained in section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925:[1]
? 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. ?

Differences from duress

While marital coercion is broadly similar to duress, it has the following differences:

It must be proved that the defendant is the legal wife of the man who coerced her. A mistaken though reasonable belief that she was married will not suffice.[2] Civil partnership does not suffice. [ Huhne's lover who was a bisexual in a civil partnership when he had his secret affair with her could not for example use it in her previous relationship had a similar case arisen although if the gay marriage bill goes through those who are married and are in gay relationships ... actually they would probably not be a wife - so it could not be used there}...

" The burden of proof is on the defence to prove marital coercion on the balance of probabilities, whereas the burden is on the prosecution to disprove duress beyond reasonable doubt.
Duress requires a threat to kill or cause serious harm to a person. The Court of Appeal held in R v Shortland [3] that marital coercion need not involve physical force or the threat of force. (However mere loyalty to her husband does not suffice.)
Section 47 requires the husband to be present when the offence is committed. The defence of duress does not require the presence of the person who issued the threat, provided that the threat is still effective.
Duress is not a defence to attempted murder, but attempted murder is not excluded by the text of section 47 from the scope of marital coercion.
Duress is a defence to some forms of treason,[4] but marital coercion is not."

They have been trying to abolish it since 1977 apparently. Quite a bit about it here obiterj.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/odd-corners-of-criminal-law-marital.html

Morning. In response to some mails to us, we thought we come and say it's fine to discuss Chris Huhne's guilty plea and Vicky Pryce's plea of marital coercion. It's also fine to discuss the evidence that has been introduced into court.

But please bear in mind that the trial is still continuing, and any speculation about Vicky Pryce's guilt (or otherwise) may have to be deleted.

Interesting that the law Xenia quotes refers to Husband and wife (the wife being coerced by the husband) and not spouse.

Is there a flip side where the husband could use a defence of coercion?

Is the law outdated/sexist/or simply accurately recognises the fuckwitterdy of husbands as opposed to wives