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

#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.
 
#2
An odd corner of the criminal law which last saw the light of day in an English court in 1922.
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."
 
#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.
 
#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.
 
#6
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.
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:

Q5: Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?
Answer: “The answer is a firm no, because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.”
 
#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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
He said Kent!!!!!


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#17
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.
Bosh, Nail - Head - Hit!
 
#18
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.
Do you have much experience in this field?

I see many members of the jury (no not whilst gripping the rail) and to be polite I'm often underwhelmed.

******* half wits.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#20
This one was my favourite:
These people have probably sat through endless repeats of daytime television crime/court programmes and yet they were capable of asking that of the Judge. Still, I suppose as it's Southwark the jury represented the run of the local populace, who frankly I have little confidence in their understanding of which country they currently infest.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top