Unsurprisingly I have been asked about l'affaire Huhne by a lot of friends and acquaintances in recent weeks, but I decided to leave any more blog comment until the cases reached their conclusion.
I suspected, right up to Huhne's surprise plea, that some procedural matter might prove fatal to the prosecution, and my suspicions were reinforced when a number of gagging orders were imposed, but I was wrong. When Huhne and his counsel realised that the game was up, a late plea was the obvious way to go.
I have blogged previously about the lengths people are prepared to go to in order to escape a driving ban. Huhne is by no means the first to come to grief in this way, so when it came to the potential sentence I saw the likely outcome as a starting point of 12 to 18 months based on earlier cases. Despite some excitable press comment pointing out the potential life sentence His Lordship's sentences fell comfortably within the guidelines that bind him as tightly as they do a humble JP.
So what do the prison sentences mean in reality? Eight months become four after automatic release. For relatively low-level and non-violent offenders like these two, a release on tag is likely after no more than a couple of months. The prison authorities will have been assessing their new charges and are likely to get them out of secure (and expensive) central London prisons into open (and cheaper) alternatives as soon as they can. Prison staff like a quiet life as much as any of us, and high profile inmates can require a disproportionate level of management, so shipping them out is a tempting option.
The truly nasty bit is likely to be the early days, when the loss of autonomy and the harsh surroundings would intimidate anyone. I have been taken through the induction process at Brixton and Wandsworth and these are calculated to make sure that you understand just who is in charge. First-night receptions are given special attention, as that is when self-harm can occur with unstable inmates. An experienced old officer once told me that even the cocky young heroes who like to have a bit of a swagger usually cry after lights out, and want their mum.
What will the sentences achieve? In terms of Huhne and Pryce, nothing at all. They do not need any of the treatment that the prisons can offer, so it is a case of sit it out until HDC (Home Detention Curfew) day. For society it is just a waste of resources; except for the fact that these highly publicised cases might just deter others from emulating them. And that, in the last analysis, is why prison was inevitable.
Would be interested to hear views from the bench about the availability of "spousal coercion" as a defence - not specifically in this case, but that the notion exists at all in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to say that this is an outdated relic of ages past, but the incidence of coercion within relationships is hard to deny, and is especially prevalent in conjunction with the threat of violence or oppression. The courts are inundated with cases involving domestic violence and abuse of many kinds, and there is something in me that clings to the notion that coercion within a relationship should be capable of constituting an absolute defence, and not just mitigation. Of course, such coercion is possible within any type of relationship, including the most tenuous, and especially those where one partner is particularly vulnerable. It is clearly iniquitous for this defence to be available only to wives and not to partners in civil partnerships, or same sex spouses (from countries where such marriages already exist), whether male or female - it has to be a wife coerced by her husband.
DeleteSo my tentative view is that such a defence should remain, but be extended to all relationships (and to both sexes, even if most domestic abuse is committed by males against females). This is exactly the sort of thing that should be put to a Royal Commission, however, and debated by experts.
Kate Caveat
Chris Huhne was gambling for high stakes. Without the opportunity to drive to his prospective constituency Eastleigh, he might never have become an MP. Then he would never have become a minister then a secretary of state. And he had his eyes on party leadership. The potential rewards must have made the risk seem worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteOf course it's very sh**y to coerce your wife to take your points. If it's really true that he asked her to take the points, she refused, so he filled in her name anyway and sent off the paperwork and he just went along with it, then I'm surprised he did not get a much stiffer sentence than her. His was the controlling mind, the instigator. She was mainly guilty of pliability. And she almost got off! The first jury were hopelessly divided. Equal sentences seems perverse. And both sentences seem excessive. Hers at least should have been suspended.
(And I remain of the view that s172 is an abomination which abrogates the presumption of innocence. I would be Chris Huhne's greatest fan if he had just written NO COMMENT on the FPN and taken the 6 points+fine+ban on the chin. I only hope I have the fortitude to do that should a scamera ever catch me.)
I share your dislike of S172 but we have to take the law as it is. Chris Huhne could have acted as you suggested but 6 more points would have led to him being disqualified as a totter (unless he successfully argued Extreme Hardship.)
DeleteSwansong, I think you mean "exceptional hardship". Indeed, it is not inconceivable that a court could have found exceptional hardship in the Huhne case, had he advanced his particular circumstances at the time. There's little point in speculating, however, as he chose a different course, which has now cost him very dear (very much more than it would have cost him to call on the services of Mr Freeman or another motoring specialist).
DeleteAs regards s172 prosecutions, my only comment is that there would seem to be some extraordinary machine in every sorting office in the land that munches up notices of intended prosecution etc. and means that even people who otherwise have no issues with their mail deliveries fail to receive any of the five or six letters that precede a s172 conviction, but they almost all receive the letter infoming them that they've received 6 points and a fine of £600 or more plus costs and the VS in time to appeal to the Crown Court. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Crown Court time is taken up with s172 appeals. A fair chunk would be my guess.
If it's really true that he asked her to take the points, she refused, so he filled in her name anyway and sent off the paperwork and he just went along with it, then I'm surprised he did not get a much stiffer sentence than her.
DeleteA FOAF who used to work for Pryce is on record as saying that he'd rather put his hand in a blender than get on the wrong side of her. None of the people I know who also know her believe for a moment that she was coerced: she simply isn't the sort of person you can coerce.
A FOAF who used to work for Pryce is on record as saying that he's rather put his hand in a blender than get the wrong side of her. Nobody I know who's had any dealings with her believes for a moment that she was coerced: she simply isn't the sort of person you can coerce.
DeleteHUHNE got a slightly reduced sentance because he admitted his guilt (Very late in the day) I suspect if Pryce had pleaded guilty and then in mitigation said she had been pressurised her sentance would have been much reduced. Going for the the archaic defence of 'Marital coercion' looked like she was trying to wriggle out of her responsibilities.
ReplyDeletePersonally though it does seem tough on Pryce.
Vicky Pryce tried to have her cake and eat it. She wanted to get off but get Huhne sent down. That was always going to be challenging. Her first attempt was to suggest that the points were taken by Jo White, Huhne's assistant. That failed when it turned out White did not have a driver's licence! Pryce tried to entrap Huhne three times by recording phone conversations. She did a deal with the Sunday Times, then welshed on it with the Mail on Sunday.
DeleteThis all led to the judge making some pointed comments about her at sentencing. However none of what she did apart from the Perverting Justice was actually illegal so should not have been reflected in the sentence.
I was amazed that the reporter for the BBC seemed to think that Huhne had received a longer than average sentence because he had been a cabinet minister! I will have to look through the sentencing guidelines to see if being a public figure is an aggravating factor.
ReplyDeleteIt is a complete waste of money to imprison these two. They, or society, gain nothing from them being removed from circulation. However they needed to be punished. How restrictive are guidelines? I would have said enforced attendance between 9am and 9pm, together, in a small room doing something useful, without phone, internet, TV, radio etc. for a period of 3 months every day would have been best.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it he got sent down for what he actually did, in a way she got sent down for knowing about it, and sitting on it for _years_ before trying to use it for her own advantage.
ReplyDeleteSeems to come out that if someone has taken points to get away with claiming they were forced they need to report it as soon as they practically can - or have a good defence as to what took so long (talking to a newspaper to try and sell the story probably will do more harm than good)
Agree the cost of locking them up serves no real purpose, _except_ to show that this is not something that will incur a fine - in effect allowing the wealthy to buy their way out of this.
I think they both got what they had coming, and I do hope they go after them for the costs, specifically him for dragging this out - which should and apparently did, impact on the sentence
It is an unedifying case, but I cannot at all agree that the sentences are harsh. Although I am not generally a great fan of prison (nor indeed of speed cameras and the modern obsession with slowing the traffic), I do think that it is inevitable for this offence, which I regard as very serious. The guideline range is 4-36 months. I would have put the starting point at 12 months for both of them. I would not give her any discount for being female, nor would I accept the argument that she was coerced - the jury rejected that. She fought the case all the way, so she gets no discount for a guilty plea. So it's 12 months for her. He has a modest discount for a late guilty plea, but no other discount. So its 11 months for him.
ReplyDeleteIn both cases this results in relatively short periods in custody, for reasons which have been pointed out elsewhere. I do no see those periods as being excessive. We simply cannot allow people to pervert the course of justice.
Hubris, plain and simple. We have a political class that have no shame- look at all the liars who were fiddling their expenses. it is true power is a drug and when those who are neither suited to it or capable of discharging the duties honourably get into these positions they hang on like grim death.
ReplyDeleteMr H is an acknowledged liar. If this offence had bee ncommitted by joe public then no one would have batted an eyelid about the sentence. The crocodile teas from his erstwhile colleagues was nausiating. I feel sorry for his kids but for him and her they deserve what they got.
hopefully the CPS will recover the full costs from them too
@Nationalist Police have been writing to vehicle owners for details of the driver since before the days of camera enforcement. The law requires them to notify the driver/owner within 14 days of the alleged offence. I see nothing wrong in this and it has been upheld by the courts as compatible with the HRA. There is a report in the papers today suggesting this practice is widespread and harmless - I suggest it is not widespread and such behaviour hits at the heart of the justice system.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that it is very widespread and know of at least one Police force who have an officer solely to investigate speeding offences where the owner of the vehicle has nominated an alternative driver.
DeleteAs is usually the case with Police work it comes down to simply practicalities in that it depends on what camera was being used. If it was a Gatso, then it only takes a rear view picture of the vehicle and is of no evidential value (in terms of indentifying the driver). If it was a Truvelo, then these take a frontal view and it's generally easier to visually confirm the driver.
Anecdotally I think that the 2 year/6 point limit for new drivers has only exacerbated this trend.
@westofthelaw, I was not aware that forced disclosure predated cameras and I am aware that the law is the law and all avenues of appeal re s172 have been exhausted - even the ECHR has pronounced it lawful (albeit a majority decision not unanimity.)
DeleteHowever I regard it as a violation of natural justice and I suspect most other people do as well, which is why point-passing is so widespread. I know a woman who simply gave the name and address of a friend in America and never heard any more from the "safety partnership". And I never reported this to anyone! Me bad! I expect most people know someone who has done something similar.
Out of interest, was his ban applied too? As has been noted he will be out in 4 months and quite possibly 2 with a tag. It would be ironic if he was driving around during that period.
ReplyDeleteThis would be very difficult to reconstitute. He was disqualified as a totter very soon afterwards for a mobile phone offence, which 'removed' those points. It was open to the judge to impose a ban, or even confiscate his car. He does not appear to have done either.
DeleteNonsense, Nationalist. No injustice would have been done if she had got a bit more than he - he pleaded and she tried to blame him - if she had succeeded that would have upped his sentence. She went along because - at the time - she did not want him banned any more than he wanted to be banned.
ReplyDeleteThen, later, she wanted revenge. And she got it. And it cost her. Good.
A costs hearing is to follow in due course. Should be interesting!
ReplyDeleteAlso, worth noting how little was said about the jury system when the second jury convicted Pryce but the jury system was on its deathbed when the first jury was discharged.
It is always amazing how wealthy people will fight a totting disqual. Had Mr H taken the ban then people would at least have had some respect for him and the costs of a driver for the length of the band would have been massively less than what he might have to pay in costs. For myself, I do not believe that receiving a totting driving ban would have made him unelectable. It's the lying that sunk him.
Whether 8 months was reasonable or not, isn't it somewhat perverse that the not-guilty plea was overlooked by the judge? Surely she should have got 8 months plus 10%. A bad message sent.
ReplyDeleteOn what earthly basis?! You don't set a tariff and then add to it because of a not guilty plea.
ReplyDelete