Chris Huhne

[Kathyan]

His trial starts next Monday according to the BBC news website.

[Canary42]

Couldn't they have speeded it up a bit :)

[Ric.ror]

Now we have the 'related questions' link I can see you seem quite interested in this
Any particuliar reason?

[Kathyan]

Because if it had been an ordinary member of the public it would have been sorted by now. It's gone on for far too long.

[Ric.ror]

Well theres' a surprise

[Kathyan]

What do you mean by that?

[barney4444]

Come on ric. we all waiting with bated breath..

[Ric.ror]

Because if it had been an ordinary member of the public it would have been sorted by now. It's gone on for far too long.
- and him being a member of the coalition governement would have absolutley nothing to do with that would it? Or am I being a little cynical

[ummmm]

How long should it have taken?

[FredPuli43]

He's not being treated any differently from an ordinary member of the public, provided that that person had a straightforward trial, lasting a short time, involving only police evidence on the prosecution side, needed a fixed date and had retained a QC. Not everyone fits those criteria !

[jno]

according to Wikipedia it began two weeks ago but under reporting restrictions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne#Prosecution_for_perverting_the_course_of_justice

He's not a member of the governement any more, he's just another MP, I think

[barney4444]

Well you say that, but there is an argument for saying that the penalties people with high profile jobs get are more severe than us ordinary mortals. I mean look at Andrew Mitchell, all he did basically was have a argument with a policeman and he loses his job. Bit excessive really.

[FredPuli43]

She's running 'marital coercion', according to the link. Blimey, her QC must have got a junior [counsel] who's a) not a criminal practitioner (a crime boy wouldn't think of it or find it in the law books) b) believes that antiquated law, even though revised, is going to go down well with a judge in a criminal court or the jury (who will be disinclined to accept the idea that a wife, let alone this wife, is so dominated by her husband who was present that she loses free will). It's virtually the same as duress which is very difficult to establish; the defendant has to prove it on the balance of probabilities and it has to be such action or words as to cause someone to do the crime because they are in such fear that they can do no else. If the man was that threatening or violent in nature, and over such a matter, it's a wonder she is still with him. But if she's running it, that doesn't bode well for his case since it amounts to saying that he knew, or believed, he was guilty.

As to politicians being treated more severely, well it's a bit odd that anyone feels it necessary to resign when they either have not been charged or have not been convicted

[pdq1]

Vicky Price has also been charged so this revengeful woman should receive the maximum penalty.

[Gromit]

Pdq1,
She reported a crime, whatever her reason was. It is a crime that equally involved the participation of two people. Assuming they are guillty, they should both get the same sentence.