Big Graeme wrote:
Perverting the course of justice is a serious crime and rightly carries a custodial sentence, in a country when the law is upheld with the consent of the people it can't be seen to be held in contempt by its citizens.
^^ this ^^
It is viewed as not just a crime against the state but a crime against what is probably the most important foundation that underpins the state.
In the 1970s a mate of mine worked for Security Express. One particular contract they operated was to return used banknotes to the Bank of England for destruction. This involved collecting sacks of notes from individual banks, collating them into cages and trucking them back to the BoE for incineration. These notes were literally stuffed into bin bags and wads of notes would spill out onto the floor. My mate, over a period of months, managed to "pick up" over £30k of this "unwanted" cash and redistribute it to various retailers and holiday companies.
It was only a matter of time before he was caught and he was charged, and pleaded guilty to the theft. Before passing a custodial sentence of only 6 months, the judge was scathing in his criticism of Security Express, even suggesting they remove the word "Security" from their title. He also said that if the money had not belonged to Treasury, he would've been less inclined to order a custodial sentence but the fact that it impacted on money supply (however insignificant in the grand scheme), was the deciding factor. So it wasn't the amount involved or even the crime itself, it was who the money belonged to that determined the sentence.
Chris Huhne was a high-profile figure in our legislature, he had input into the formulation and delivery of laws on the statute books. He showed clear contempt for the law and between them, he and his then wife belived themselves above the very laws he was supposed to guard. A custodial sentence probably wasn't necessary but it was a clear case of "justice beeing seen to be done".
