Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

I am not sure how common it is in criminal cases to try to recover costs from the individual convicted of the criminal offence.

Huhne probably needs to say less because everything he seems to say to the children and the press comes over as proving exactly how awful he is/was to them. He has an interesting way of twisting things. To suggest the parents now cannot help the younger children on the property ladder was unnecessary to utter. Also I assume they both got about £2m on the divorce and there will be some slack in that to pay a 10% deposit as the children leave university on a first one bed flat and there remains a possibility they would rather die than take his money now anyway particularly the one who changed their surname so it wasn't Huhne, because of his betrayal of their mother.

All they had to do - she could have done it herself - was to contact the police and say there had been an error in submitting the form and that he had been the driver and could they correct this

I think that's quite an "error" to have made in an official declaration where you are expected to use "reasonable diligence".

I agree Xenia. I would be extremely surprised if his children would take an offer of a cup of tea from him, never mind a deposit on a house.

I'm really angry with Price's sentence, as someone said, she didn't gain anything by taking his points.

I also don't understand that given the evidence from her brother (he said she talked to him several times about the fact she didn't want to take the points) the tape of her and her ExH (Huhne would not respond to "admit you made me take those points" he just kept saying he wasn't having that conversation on the phone- surely if he hadn't coerced her he would have just said "I did no such thing" and finally the texts from the son to his F, again saying "we all know you made mum do it".

The jury must have dismissed all three bits of evidence. If I'd been on that jury I would have said these very much pointed towards the fact she was coerced.

re the phone call - he was aware that she was trying to trap him into commenting and was too clever to take the bait

I think it was ill-advised of the judge to make any moralistic subjective comments about either of them.

I agree that the comments about VP smack of the popular 'hell hath no fury' belief, and his comments about CH maybe showiing the beginnings of contrition have made him look like a fool becuase in the interview CH gave just before sentencing, but not releaesed until after, CH describes his offence as a 'white lie' and while he taks of sorrrow that he has brought trouble to his friends and family, shows no upset at all that he made a mockery of the very law, and therfore democracy, that he sought to profit from by taking a role in.

If the judge was going to make character judgements on peope involved, what about a little summary of the behaviour of the ST journalist and her role in it? The terrible advice VP was encouraged to take and believe?

I have no quibble with her conviction, but think the judge fell hook line and sinker for some of the playing to the gallery and stereotyped views.

Carlajean - he was also trying to save VP from the trap that she was leading BOTH of them into - he knew she was as much at risk of prison as he was. VP would have done very well to have taken his advice at that point!

I do feel uncomfortable about elements of the court's treatment of Pryce.

I agree she didn't gain anything by taking his points, and was trapped when trying to prove it. If she had been a 'dependent spouse', she would have been accused of wanting to maintain that nice, dependent lifestyle; but being an independent earner, she failed in her marital coercion defence. Lose-lose for Pryce.

She may not have been tried for the crime of being a bitter woman but she seems to have been sentenced for being one.

And I didn't like the judge's differential selection of words, either.

it is quite easily possible that someone would willingly take their spouses points,

because if spouse then lost licence they would lose job making finances difficult , they may see it as a team thing, a spouse asking you to do something is not coercion it is not coercion if they go in major sulk because you won't do it coercion is to the extent that you feel absolutely no choice because of threat of violence or other serious threat

I think the jury and judge believed that Ch asked her to take points maybe nagged about it but she was not coerced as they did not believe VP would have been in any danger if she said no, therefore coercion defence does not work

In VPs case, it is even less likely a team effort - she was financially independent so had less motive to willingly take points than say a wife whose husband is a sole earner and whose job relies on being able to drive

Really? I can think of any number of reasons why she would willingly take points - one she mentioned in her email exchange with Isabel Oakshot that she didn't want to have to drive him around for the duration of the ban.

JugglingFromHereToThere - I think the requirements are as they are because a very large proportion of vehicles are either company vehicles - not just cars - and hire cars, so form is sent to registered owner who will know who would have ben driving.

CH would have made her drive him around?

That's whaqt she thought. He was someone who expected everyone to run around after him. He swanned off to Brussels, left her with the 5 children at home whilst working full time and she also paid most of all theirs expenses leaving his income for him to invest in properties etc. In effect she was almost a single parent and she gave up career opportunities for him. In return he committed adultery and dumped her in a few seconds in a very cruel way only because the press were about to go public on the story because he was too stupid to keep his affair away from the press. He is probably very sorry he got found out but not sorry for his own conduct.

VP seems well rid of him and I hope when they are both out of prison she manages to rebuild her career and he instead stays at home cleaning the whose whilst Ms Trumpington earns the money to keep him.

Sounds like VP was caught between a rock and hard place. If she didn't take the points, CH would have yet another heap of expectations to dump on her shoulders.

She was probably always worried, somewhere deep down maybe, that he would leave her and the children after she had sacrificed so much. After all, he did in the end. And it undid her.

I'm really angry with Price's sentence, as someone said, she didn't gain anything by taking his points.

Well she benefited by having him still able to drive. To be it boils down to;
He was a selfish, awful man but she stayed married to him all the same.
She still had a pretty great career but yes made sacrifices for him but I am guessing that she agreed to this.
The actual crime of taking his points is relatively minor and I imagine its more common than we think.
His behaviour was always hideous, hers was nevertheless shocking. She seemed willing to destroy everything just to get her revenge. She even brought up him wanting her to abort their son. I get that it must have been utterly devestating for her and breakups are messy but why do this to your children

I think her children will be fine - and probably delighted that she was able to stand up to him in the end. Isn't that what any kid wants a downtrodden, badly treated parent to do.

"Gave up career opportunities", "Sacrificed so much" Please...

An utterly brilliant economist, Chief Economist at several top banks and corporations since 1973, earning a six figure salary over 10 years ago, have you even seen her achievements? But Oh No, she's reduced to the level of a mindless doormat on Mumsnet chat today...

She has no chance of rebuilding her career. She has a criminal conviction and worked in finance, come on.

Incidentally, the new man in her life is Denis McShane. Yep, former Labour MP, resigned as an MP in 2012 due to submitting false expenses invoices. She can certainly pick 'em...

I think you're making huge generalisations there Skybore.

Are you really saying that a successful woman can't ever be treated badly by an equally successful man? And that if a susscessful women ever complains of being badly treated by her H we should not believe her?

Women in abusive relationships are not 'mindless doormats' Sky. I think you don't understand the dynamics of an abusive relationship if you think so.

"Her behaviour may not have been nice but it is not something that the legal system has any right to punish her for because it has no relevance on the crime she is guilty of."

Yes, there's always a pressure on women to be NICE. Why do they have to be nice? And in some circumstances being nice isn't necessarily appropriate or good for the health or sanity.

They are a revolting couple and deserve everything they got and more.

I agree, his affair and her quest for revenge are unedifying on a personal level, but in the legal sense irrelevant.

They both willingly and knowingly broke the law and both got relatively short custodial sentences. I can't see what more there is to it.