Huhne Guilty

[FredPuli43]

Huhne has changed his plea to guilty. He must have finally realised the co-defendant was running a cut throat defence; she was maintaining that she only lied because she was compelled to do so by him; and was going to be credible.

Should mean instant custody. Anyone think he'll escape that? Just a chance that he got a hint that he might escape on a plea of guilty.

[anotheoldgit]

See below

[emmie]

see what below

[emmie]

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1213639.html

[Ann]

Wish they'd hurry up and get it off Sky News, its cut into the extremely interesting press conference about the discovery of Richard III - surely this is more important news than that of a disgraced MP?

[starone]

This has been going on for such a long time I forgot what it was he had done and had to google it. Talk about the mills of God grinding slowly, our justice system certainly does.

[youngmafbog]

Send him down and lets all get on with life

[bazwillrun]

I imagine he was advised to plead guilty as his only chance, if in fact there is one, of avoiding her majesty's hospitality

[anotheoldgit]

em10

/// see what below ///

You have answered your own question.

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1213639.html

[FredPuli43]

Turns out that the hearing in the Crown Court started some days ago, his counsel arguing that continuance of prosecution was an abuse of process. Not surprisingly, this failed. Prosecuting someone ten years after the event could be an abuse, if the Crown was possessed of the necessary evidence in the first place and a fair trial was unlikely because witnesses or exhibits were not available or the witnesses could not be expected to have accurate recollection, but that was not this case. We prosecute murderers twenty years after the event, when the necessary evidence against them is first known. Of course, Mr Huhne might have argued that prosecuting someone as important as he is, over a mere lie in a traffic case, was an abuse !

On that being rejected, his counsel advised that he had no case worth fighting, no doubt, given the evidence in prospect. His plea, in these circumstances, lies ill with his earlier statements that a jury would accept that he was innocent; no question of acquittal on procedural grounds there.