Chris Huhne has resigned as Energy Secretary after being charged over allegations he lied to police to escape a driving ban.

[sinderella]

Chris Huhne has resigned as Energy Secretary after being charged over allegations he lied to police to escape a driving ban.
hell has no fury.........

[anneasquith]

stepping down for the good of the party................ oh really !

[Hymie]

This case has the prospect of highlighting an unfairness within British justice.

It is entirely possible that Mrs Huhne admits the offence, and is sentenced for the crime – whereas Mr Huhne protests his innocence and is acquitted at trail.

They would not be the first persons to suffer such an apparent miscarriage of justice – and they would not be the last.

[brenda]

I think he is a slimy s-d, and she is no better .They deserve whatever they get.

[FredPuli43]

Unlikely, Hymie, in this case but I have known of a case where one defendant told his counsel he was guilty but wanted to plead not guilty, and he did just that. Under the rules of the Bar then , his client having confessed to him, his counsel could act, but ask only a few formal questions of witnesses. His closing speech could be no more than to ask the jury whether they were sure the case was proved against his client. The jury acquitted that defendant but convicted the co-defendants, all of whom had contested the case fully and given evidence!

[Dodger666]

Whatever the court's verdict the electorate of Eastleigh will have the opportunity to give their verdict in the next election.

[emmie]

she should not have taken the points in the first place, no matter that you are married to the person, it's called breaking the law, and she should have known better. He seems a creep, protesting your innocence as he has done, why resign if that is the case.

[joggerjayne]

Is this a total waste of our hard earned taxes?

The evidence will be a straight case of "one word against the other".

But for the case to succeed, it has to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".

In a "one word against the other" case, there is nearly always reasonable doubt.

So the case must fail.

UNLESS ...

The Court feel the need to make an example of Mr Huhne, and find him guilty IN SPITE OF the reasonable doubt.

And THAT would be as much of a travesty as what Mrs Huhne claims she and her husband did.

[Dodger666]

I don't think it's just a case of he says she says.

I understand this case has taken so long for charges to be brought because the CPS has been obtaining email and phone conversation evidence. The CPS wouldn't have charged him if they didn't think they had a chance of a prosecution.

[starone]

I know it's wrong and I don't agree with it, but flip-flop, that is so romantic and loving. Your wife is so lucky to have a man like you.

[andy-hughes]

flip-flop - if as an individual, you choose to break the law to preserve your wife's clean licence, that is one thing, if however you are a government minister and elected MP, I think the public is entitled to believe that you are possessed of a reasonable level of integrity which rises above such actions.

If we cant trust the minister about his driving record, can we believe him about anything else?

[FredPuli43]

Best defence? Say that, at the time, he and his wife couldn't say for sure which of them was driving. The form had to be filled in, so she said, as they didn't know, on balance it was better that she'd take the points as he had more. Years later, after they fell out and he had gone off with his mistress, she 'remembered' that he had definitely been driving and she wasn't but he had compelled or persuaded her to make the false statement, against her better judgment. That's how memory gets affected by emotion with the passage of time (to put it neutrally). They had not, at the time, knowingly made false statements or conspired to pervert justice.

Trouble is, she may have told people it was false at the time, shortly after making the false statement!

[Hymie]

I think that there are time-lines of events (on the day in question) within the public domain.

I’m sure if you do an internet search you will find them.

But from memory, the story goes like this; Mrs Huhne was at a meeting in central London – Mr Huhne was arriving back via Stanstead airport.

The claim is that Mrs Huhne drove to Stanstead to pick up her husband, drove back – during which time she was caught speeding. Ignoring the time that Mr Huhne’s flight arrived (and assuming she managed to pick him up at the airport without waiting), there is insufficient time for her to drive from central London (the time she left the meeting is known), drive to Stanstead airport and then to where she was supposedly caught speeding.

I recall reading one journo reporting that he had tried driving the route – reporting that even allowing for light traffic, it could not be done.

[DTCwordfan]

I loved the yarn that someone posted over on Jokes yesterday.

That Mrs Huhne has replaced John Terry as England captain - she's good at taking penalties.....

[Hymie]

Applying lateral thinking to my previous post – if Mr. Huhne drove himself from Stanstead airport, then it is likely that he used the airport’s car park. It would be interesting if there was a credit card payment record (in his name) for airport parking, during his trip abroad.

Another line of enquiry for the CPS.

[AlBags]

She must be a bitter cow to try this after so long.
Dropped herself right in it.

[bundleone]

I tried to do the same thing when I had 3 points on my licence but my husband wouldn't let me. I'm sure that happens a lot, and as it's usually the lower side of speeding I dont see it's all that wrong.

[New Judge]

You don’t see it’s all that wrong, bundleone?

The nature of the offence is not the issue. Very often “taking the points” for someone is done because the ultimate penalty for the real criminal would be harsher than for the false one (because they may already have points which would mean either an increased insurance premium or even disqualification under the “totting up” rules).

But even if that was not the case, perversion of justice in this way is very considerably wrong. Justice must be administered fairly and it is not an option for somebody to accept a penalty on behalf of somebody else.

[Dodger666]

New Judge. As a matter of interest, if the ex Mrs Huhne pleads guilty and, as expected, Mr Huhne pleads not guilty, what will be the outcome if Mr Huhne is found not guilty? Presumably if he is not guilty the the ex Mrs Huhne must be not guilty by default despite her guilty plea.

Just a thought.

[Hymie]

The courts cannot reconcile this apparent dichotomy.

In each case, the court will have reached the correct verdict – although obvious to all, one must be wrong.

Such verdicts not uncommon within the British legal system; where one person is found/pleads guilty and another is found innocent – but if the guilty person’s version of events is true – then the other is guilty.

To minimise such occurrences, defendants will be tried together – so that juries are less likely reach such a conclusion.

But should Mrs Huhne plead guilty – it is entirely possible that Mr Huhne is acquitted at trial.

[FredPuli43]

The point is that these are substantive charges, not a conspiracy alleged. It follows logically that she can plead guilty yet he be acquitted on the facts. She, he may say, acted entirely alone in declaring herself the driver and she forged his signature on his declaration. If the jury think that could have happened, are not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, they will acquit him. That doesn't stop her being guilty, whatever factual basis founded her plea of guilty.
.