Vicky Pryce turns perverting the course of justice into a marital coercion farce.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by school_for_scoundrels, Feb 20, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. You`ve got to hand it to the lady, she`s no dummy. First she sinks her clever dick ex without trace, cornering him & leaving him with little option but to plead guilty.

    Then she bamboozles a jury with her marital coercion defence. An odd corner of the criminal law which last saw the light of day in an English court in 1922. The jury simply do not know what to make of such a defence in the politically correct, equal opportunity society of 2013 & cannot produce a verdict. So much so, that they end up questioning the judge 10 times about how they should regard this, that or the other. It`s about a speeding offence, not murder & a death sentence

    Judge ends up losing his temper with the jury after a week of deliberation, branding them a complete shower before discharging them. As far as prosecuting her is concerned, it`s go back to Old Kent Road, do not pass go, do not collect 200 pounds.

    Meanwhile she sits in court resting her chin in the palms of her hand, musing to herself about these fools & enjoying the show.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. She's playing a blinder. The average Jury nowadays are barely literate and fed such a confusing bollocks of multi culti, equality and diversity shite that Marital Coercion is tooooooo difficult to get their feeble intellects around. Oh, it only applies to wimmin. And it is still in use today. A quick google brought up this

    ""It is clear that coercion must be given a broader meaning than duress
    because otherwise this statutory defence would serve no useful purpose
    and add nothing, especially since it requires proof of the additional
    ingredient of the presence of the husband. The leading case on what is
    meant by coercion in Section 47 is that of R v Shortland [1996] 1 Cr App
    R 116. There this court approved a direction that coercion did not
    necessarily mean physical force or the threat of physical force, it
    could be physical or moral, but the wife had to prove that her will was
    so overborne by the wishes of her husband that she was forced
    unwillingly to participate in the offence. It was made clear that this
    was to be distinguished from willing participation out of such feelings
    as loyalty to the husband."
    • Like Like x 6
  3. Agreed, but I think this is much more to do with the general thickness of the English population than any cleverness on Pryce's side.

    They even queried the judge on the meaning of 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' for fucks sake.

    Maybe Diplock was the better way to go.
    • Like Like x 7
  4. She sunk Huhne, she's all good in my books.
  5. I think it's time to abolish juries. The average intellectual standard of a normal member of public these days is 'complete retard'.

    Why should people be judged by a gaggle of complete fuckwits? Leave that to those who know best, i.e. not the public or politicians.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. And a Southwark Crown Court jury.....oh dear.

    Snaresbrook Crown court used to have the highest rate of acquittals in the country apparently.

    Allegedly merely a professional courtesy from the rest of the public that ended up on juries from the local council estates.
  7. This one was my favourite:

    • Like Like x 10
  8. Although the members of this particular jury have embarassed themselves by asking the judge some monumentally stupid questions, it doesn't seem to happen that often. Usually my criticism of courts is sentencing.
  9. True, but the shrewdness on her part, is knowing this & how intellectually challenging & confusing her defence would be to a jury of minds befuddled with new age virtues & obsessed with politically correct values.
  10. how would anyone know how often it happens? The majority of jury trials aren't reported in the media, so jury questions wouldn't be in the public domain

    and with sentencing the Judges are constrained by the sentencing guidelines (and I suspect the complete lack of political will to build more prisons)
  11. Some of the questions appear to be monumentally stupid, but they are highly articulate and, dare I say it, drafted by the same hand.

    We rightly don't have access to the secrets of the jury room, but one wonders how much influence that person - presumably the jury foreman - had over the deliberations.

    At least the jury asked the questions, rather than come to a verdict in ignorance.
  12. A very good point, this does tend to put the competence of the jury system in some doubt though, especially as you have tacitly suggested that juries may have come to their conclusions without resorting to questions and possibly misunderstanding the whole process and their role in it.

    It's all a bit worrying frankly.
  13. Is it true one of the questions from the jury was

    "Can we find the defendant not guilty on the basis that her ex-husband is a cnut?"
  14. And those no hopers still didn`t manage to reach a verdict at all. So I guess after all that guidance they were still none the wiser, i.e. ignorant. Which just goes to prove, trying to educate some people is a complete waste of time, money & doesn`t help. They were collectively straining their minds over this concept for a whole week & still couldn`t make a simple decision one way or the other, ffs. How painfully pathetic is that.

    So much for Tony Blair & education, education, education. Whoopee, at least they were educated failures.
  15. He said Kent!!!!!

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)