Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

Thanks, higgle

I'd forgotten about how he tried to deny it until he was completely backed into a corner. The epitome of arrogance.

There's a glimmer of hope then.

I really dislike the way there has been this presumption, this attitude in court that, since she is an intelligent woman with a good job and a good income, that this should make her immune to the pressure that he (no doubt) put her under.

I mean this attitude that women with good jobs and good incomes are "rotweillers" who should be able to stick up for themselves . It really is too bad.

We've still got such a long way to go...

I find some of these comments about her professional status being a reason that she could not have been in abusive relationship ignorant of the fact that what goes on outside the home is not always an indication of what is going on within it.

I assume the jury are correct in their assertion that marital coercion cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt but I think only a fool would suggest that there definitely cannot have been marital coercion because she was a successful professional woman.

Fwiw her defence would have been informed by her barrister.

I also don't believe she decided to tell the truth now because it was the right thing to do. She did it because she was angry, upset, humiliated etc and wanted revenge.

^ This

don't worry about vicky pryce. after she has served her sentence and put a brave remorseful face on it, she will get a 2 page spread in the guardian giving her side of the story. she is from a protected part of society, she'll be okay.

Yes, but it doesn't make any difference if she is a woman or not. The wronged party doing something as an act of vengence and not to get justice will be called bitter regardless of whether that person was a man or a woman.

If it is now a gender issue, if anything she made it that way by using the defence of marital coercion. Would any man use that? I very much doubt it. It was a cynical attempt to make out she was wronged by her husband and that as a poor little wife she had no option but to get along with it. The jury didn't believe her and regardless of what we read in the papers and whatever hatchet job they may or may have not done on her, we have to accept that she wasn't coerced and that therefore what she did was a crime.

As for her being the better parent, that is laughable when you consider the mess she created by going to the papers and washing all the family's dirty linen public. She should have put her children ahead of her desire for revenge and she didn't.

slipshod - I'm not a supporter of speeding, as it can cause accidents. Having said that, many drivers go a bit over the speed limit where they think that a) it is safe to do so, b) they will not get caught. Many also do so because they did not realise what the speed limit is. In regions like Avon the speed limit changes every 5 seconds and there are millions of speeding cameras - this is presumably in order to raise money for the council. It is easy to be caught twice in ten minutes, when there has been no intention to speed. Speeding in these kinds of cases is not what I would call a serious crime. Driving a lot over the speed limit intentionally and when you are not sure that it is safe to do so is different. In the case of Huhne, he is an arrogant shit, but if I remember rightly he was not very much above the speed limit and it was late at night and in the countryside, so he probably made a judgement that it was safe (though not legal).
I don't sympathise with either of them much. Huhne lied and lied again, and exposed his bad relationship with his son to the public. Pryce was very manipulatively out to get him as viciously as she could, having made a careful judgement that she would get away with it. And if she got away with arguing marital coercion, which woman wouldn't? Far too many married women would get away with crimes.

BigBoobiedBertha: "If it is now a gender issue, if anything she made it that way by using the defence of marital coercion. Would any man use that? I very much doubt it."

A man couldn't use it - it's a defence open only to women, and wives at that. So a cohabiting woman couldn't use it, and a woman in a civil partnership couldn't use it, and a man couldn't use it.

It's basically an archaic defence - a remnant of law left over from a time when very many women were under their husbands' thumbs. But I imagine the reason she used it was because it was the only defence open to her, and her legal team would have advised her to do so. She had already foolishly admitted to the offence in a national newspaper. Once she was arrested and charged, she had two options: she could either plead guilty (but argue that there were mitigating circumstances); or she could, in desperation, use the only legal defence open to her. Presumably her lawyers advised her to choose the latter.

Also, I'm a bit like limitedperiod, in that I'm capable of feeling sorry for almost anybody, however dreadful they are. I do feel a bit sorry even for Huhne as well as for Pryce, in that the mess they have got themselves into is disproportionate to the crime committed. I disapprove of speeding, and I disapprove of taking someone else's points (I would never do it myself) and yet these are both crimes that thousands of people, I would guess, commit all the time. They rarely have their careers ruined and the terrible stories of their personal lives splashed all over the newspapers. Of course they have brought this on themselves, but that makes it all the worse somehow.

I thought at the time of the trial that her defence should have included argument that professional women are not immune from domestic abuse. I think most people don't really understand abuse and would look at an otherwise privileged woman and assume she couldn't possibly be a victim of abuse. This is not the case. I don't understand how her children's evidence that he bullied her could be ignored.

So what if she was motivated by revenge? What matters for the case is establishing what happened at the time she took the points, not whether we think she is a good mother or not. You shouldn't have to be a totally likable or admirable person for our justice system to be able to determine whether you are innocent or guilty on a particular fact. I agree with math - she's been convicted for not behaving like a good little woman, and having the temerity to mount a defence - how else could she do this in the context of abuse except by talking about the dynamics of her family?

If she had any brains she'd have realised the "husband made me" line would have played much better as mitigation than as defence.

I agree karlos. I thought she'd do this because I didn't realise there was the marital coercion defence. I forgot about the canoe woman who claimed it too. And that went well...

I thought she'd plead guilty and get a suspended sentence and lots more sympathy even though her first thought was to trash him in the papers.

She'd have had even more people on her side if she'd have gone straight to the police and put her hands up. Huhne would have still been ruined.

Someone mentioned Constance Briscoe upthread and the hope that she gets hers. I agree.This case has really brought it home to me that sometimes the 'cleverest' people act with far more stupidity than us little people. I suppose their connections make them feel immune to the consequences.

There's no question that Ms Pryce was motivated by bitterness. But why shouldn't she be bitter? Her husband was very, very deceitful, carrying on with another woman (whom he had introduced to her!) for years.

Then, when - and only when - he gets rumbled does he decide to come clean with her. And how does he do that? During the half-time break in a sports match that he's been watching on TV. Really, it beggars belief.

I think there's no doubt that she wanted to bring him down and I can understand where she's coming from. He treated her like a dog didn't he?

I do think that the jury (more men than women on it ) have reached the correct decision, based on the evidence, but I really don't think that justice has been served (yet anyway).

It's just occurred to me that Chris Huhne is probably sooooooo arrogant that he pled guilty to avoid facing a jury of his peers. No doubt he felt they were beneath him and he wanted to be in control of the inevitable outcome.

I just hope to God that he gets a much stiffer sentence than her.

God, I'm cross about this - and I don't even know them!

She hasn't been sentenced yet, so the issue of coercion could yet work as mitigation in sentencing.

I can see why Huhne threw money at it in an attempt to get the case dismissed.

It's brave to own up if you think there's a chance you'll get away with it and I don't think most people are that brave. I'm not.

It's just that most of us don't have that much money so pleading guilty wouldn't have been noble, more the only option.

Ahh chub

Chub - if they've already found against the marital coercion defence how can it be used as mitigation? (genuine question - 'scuse my ignorance of the law your honour!)

I think her guilty verdict is the right one. They both did wrong here.

And I think this will really deter people from taking points for one another. We know several friends who have done this, all of them more than once.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, I could be wrong. I thought it could come into mitigation even if dismissed as a total defence but perhaps not. I will consult professor google....

I don't think it will stop people taking points for each other. It will stop them owning up to it but there can't be many people who do that.

"I really dislike the way there has been this presumption, this attitude in court that, since she is an intelligent woman with a good job and a good income, that this should make her immune to the pressure that he (no doubt) put her under." And I really hate the presumption that because she is a woman she is automatically a victim and deserving of sympathy because clearly she had no control over what she was doing.

Seriously, she's a woman therefore she must have been pressured? since when do women not have the power of thought? and she seemed to know what she was doing when she went to the press and not the police, didn't she? Even if she was a poor little victim, this would have been her opportunity to go to the police, confess all and bring him down, but no that wasn't enough.

As for whoever said that she should be let off because she's the better parent, wtf?

Abusive men prefer strong women- more of a challenge. And people spouting this crap about hell having no fury like a woman scorned etc have clearly (and mercifully for them) never had to go through what my sister went through even after she got away from her abusive bastard of an ex.

I so agree with wannabe. I actually cheered when I heard she had (quite rightly) been found guilty. I hate women who suddenly use the 'poor little wifey' defence when it suits them.

She lied at the time because she wanted to maintain the status quo and her nice little life as the wife of an MP. They're both as awful as each other and really do deserve each other.

Also they found that there was no maritial coercion so it can't be used as 'mitigation'. If they had believe her they'd have found her not guilty. She may only get credit because it would never have come to light if she hadn't open her big vindictive mouth so she may get a brownie point for that.

There isn't an automatic presumption that she's a "poor little victim" (MN lacks an emoticon adequate to convey my thoughts on that comment btw but will do) she said she was the victim of bullying and coercion by her husband.. In the spirit of We Believe You, I choose to believe her. Just because she failed to establish a total defence to these charges on that basis it does not mean that she was definitely not pressured by Hune.

Family responsibilities are a potentially mitigating factor in sentencing btw.

"There's no question that Ms Pryce was motivated by bitterness. But why shouldn't she be bitter? Her husband was very, very deceitful, carrying on with another woman (whom he had introduced to her!) for years." but bitterness is not an excuse for going to the papers, trying to implicate and innocent party, and then claiming to have been a victim when she knew full well what she was doing.

If Vicky Pryce could have claimed her husband was physically abusive I'm sure she wouldn't have hesitated. She couldn't. She was not, even on her own self-serving account, a victim of physical abuse.
as for the contention that she was tried for having a career and an abortion etc even on MN I have never read such unmitigated bollocks. None of these matters were in issue in the trial or even in the public domain until she put them there.