Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:56 pm  

His son's texts were good though.

[DaveO]

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:35 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

By spilling the beans she also admitted her role in the conspiracy.

Err...yes. She knew that is what she would be doing.

Her defence is unlikely to stand up to much i would have thought. Intelligent, successful career Civil Servant so is unlikely to get away with the doormat defence does not. Also the evidence from the sunday times states she did it out of revenge AND that she seemed to be ignorant of the consequences. There is nothing in there that says she was coerced. We will see when the defence get going but i think that she is going to struggle to mount a credible defence.

That us not quite right. The emails from the journo at the times indicate there would be consequences for her but the journo suggested that they would be minor.

I wonder if anyone has asked the question yet of whether if you were co-erced by a bullying nasty abusive manipulative * delete as appropriate man why did you not do anything for the next 9 years and only waited until he dumped you. Therefore if he was so (bullying nasty abusive manipulative etc) why did you not take any steps to leave him, challenge him, expose him etc.

Well given victims of abuse in marriage often seem to stick around and remain compliant when doing so seems completely insane so why would this be any different?

I dont really have much time for Huhne in this but his exes actions seemed to have potentially destroyed his, her and their sons life. Revenge is a dish eaten cold. Hers was straight out of a 300 degree oven.

Hulme is the one who has destroyed his sons life. His son knew the score and has said in the texts Hulme coerced his Mum into doing so and he (the son) was clearly mightily annoyed at his Dad, not his Mum.

The fact revenge might be the motive for the exposure doesn't alter the circumstances of what led her to agree to the cover up in the first place. She either did it willingly or was coerced. If you read any of the newspaper articles about Hulme as I did yesterday it becomes clear he was a ruthless operator and that is also borne out by how he simply discarded his wife in a matter minutes in order to limit the damage to his career when the News of the World was about to expose him. I have no trouble accepting he was very much in control of his wife when they were together.

[DaveO]

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:22 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, exactly, whatever they said was (presumably) based on being told a great big whopping lie. We may never know, but had he told them he was actually guilty, I somehow doubt they'd have offered the same opinion.

Well yes but the point was he was being told by all those who he confided in that he was likely to get off and this included a judge.

No, I don't buy it at all. We are talking a man with a first from Oxford, and with multi-millions to buy the top legal advice. I seriously doubt he would set much store by unbriefed informal tittle tattle from chats with mates.

So you don't think if he tells his mate, who is a judge, the defense strategy his legal team have come up with and the judge reckons that will work that this won't help convince him he is onto a winner? Really?

Can't be done. Once they were told he had done it, they could not allow him to advance any positive case that he didn't do it. All they could then have done is put the prosecution to proof. They couldn't, for example, have him stand in a witness box and give evidence which they knew to be false. It's a perfectly permissible, and indeed normal, defence to say to the prosecution "Prove it". However if they knew he was guilty it is simply impossible that they would allow him to lie in court.

He didn't advance a positive case that he didn't do it.

The defense that was offered was there was no evidence of a crime because the records of the speeding incident had been destroyed is that the prosecution couldn't actually prove it. So based on that (and the other aspect of his defense being he wouldn't get a fair trial) his defense was not based on denial of the crime. So his legal team could very well have known he was guilty as they were not arguing he was innocent.

They were trying to get him off on technicalities not trying to prove he was innocent and QC's doing that is hardly a new thing is it?

If so and if he told his mate the judge that was the defense strategy his mate may well have known he actually did it!

I would say what this shows is that if you can afford a top QC costing £20K a day they may well put forward arguments to get you off even if they know you are guilty of the crime. It's their job to do that, not to see justice done. That is what the judge and jury are for and in this case at least money didn't buy him his freedom.

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:26 pm  

Derwent wrote:

Nonsense, m'learned friends encourage defendants and witnesses to lie in court on a routine basis. A friend of mine was charged with serious fraud and his barrister coached him in what to say in court on a version of events that was very far removed from the actual events. The barrister knew my friend was guilty but invented a scenario that was false and that was used as a defence after a not guilty plea. Happens day in, day out in every court in the land.

Absolute nonsense.

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:34 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:CRAZY: Absolute nonsense.

Slightly milder than my thoughts

[Durham Giant]

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:55 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:CRAZY: Absolute nonsense.

You are completely wrong not for the first time.

I personally was coached by a solicitor and a barrister at different times when i was appearing in court as a defendant.

I also know that solicitors and barristers regularly, " coach" their clients in family cases.

This may not take the form of these are the questions i will ask this is what you should say but it is often along the lines of you will be asked this question how will you answer it then they suggest that a better way of phrasing it would be so and so

For you to doubt this happens in my opinion makes you either either completely ignorant of how the legal system works or you are in denial of the reality.

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:09 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

You are completely wrong not for the first time.

I personally was coached by a solicitor and a barrister at different times when i was appearing in court as a defendant.

I also know that solicitors and barristers regularly, " coach" their clients in family cases.

This may not take the form of these are the questions i will ask this is what you should say but it is often along the lines of you will be asked this question how will you answer it then they suggest that a better way of phrasing it would be so and so

For you to doubt this happens in my opinion makes you either either completely ignorant of how the legal system works or you are in denial of the reality.

You seem to have conveniently ignored the part about the barrister 'knowing' they were guilty and inventing a scenario. Any line of questioning is put forward on the basis of a client's instructions. Barristers at times probably, in the back of their mind, 'think' the client is guilty. Regardless, they put the case forward on the basis of what they've been told by the defendant. If they know they're guilty because the defendant's admitted the offence, they can't go into court and put forward a completely different story. To suggest that happens on a daily basis is a load of rubbish.

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:28 pm  

Adamjk wrote:

You seem to have conveniently ignored the part about the barrister 'knowing' they were guilty and inventing a scenario. Any line of questioning is put forward on the basis of a client's instructions. Barristers at times probably, in the back of their mind, 'think' the client is guilty. Regardless, they put the case forward on the basis of what they've been told by the defendant. If they know they're guilty because the defendant's admitted the offence, they can't go into court and put forward a completely different story. To suggest that happens on a daily basis is a load of rubbish.

Well quite. Coaching a client and lying to the court are two completely different things

[Durham Giant]

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:30 pm  

Adamjk wrote:

You seem to have conveniently ignored the part about the barrister 'knowing' they were guilty and inventing a scenario. Any line of questioning is put forward on the basis of a client's instructions. Barristers at times probably, in the back of their mind, 'think' the client is guilty. Regardless, they put the case forward on the basis of what they've been told by the defendant. If they know they're guilty because the defendant's admitted the offence, they can't go into court and put forward a completely different story. To suggest that happens on a daily basis is a load of rubbish.

Legal professionals often know things about their clients that indicate guilt.

I know for a fact that legal professionals say things such as, I will ignore what you said and pretend i did not hear it.

I see these things every day.

I have had several solicitors say to me, " off the record my client has said this" because they want me to know to ensure that the correct decision is made. This is despite the fact that they should represent their clients best interests.

I had one case where a solicitor said to me, " you should go and see so and so and ask about this incident" On the basis that they knew it would ensure their client lost the case because they felt it was the right thing to do.

Just because legal professionals are not supposed to do a certain thing , they are human beings who are affected by the same pressures as re everyone else.

On the basis of your arguments about the ethics and legal duties off legal professionals you probably believe the following statements.

Police officers always tell the truth and never tell lies
Prison officers do not bring drugs into prisons.
Judges make decisions on the facts and not on their own prejudices
Doctors do not help people to die

The legal profession is no different to any other profession. There is the good the bad the ugly and those who have their own personal ethics.

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:58 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Legal professionals often know things about their clients that indicate guilt.

I know for a fact that legal professionals say things such as, I will ignore what you said and pretend i did not hear it.

I see these things every day.

I have had several solicitors say to me, " off the record my client has said this" because they want me to know to ensure that the correct decision is made. This is despite the fact that they should represent their clients best interests.

I had one case where a solicitor said to me, " you should go and see so and so and ask about this incident" On the basis that they knew it would ensure their client lost the case because they felt it was the right thing to do.

Just because legal professionals are not supposed to do a certain thing , they are human beings who are affected by the same pressures as re everyone else.

On the basis of your arguments about the ethics and legal duties off legal professionals you probably believe the following statements.

Police officers always tell the truth and never tell lies
Prison officers do not bring drugs into prisons.
Judges make decisions on the facts and not on their own prejudices
Doctors do not help people to die

The legal profession is no different to any other profession. There is the good the bad the ugly and those who have their own personal ethics.

Sometimes it'll be blatantly obvious on the evidence that they're most likely guilty. All you can do is advise them on how limited the prospects of success are in the face of such overwhelming evidence. If they're adamant they want to run a trial, you run a trial. But if they admit their guilt or start giving conflicting instructions it's a potentially totally different story depending on what it is they want you to do.

I'm not disputing the fact that there are bent people out there. Doesn't mean it's uniform throughout the legal world. There's individuals who I've come across who seem to be under the illusion that all solicitors/barristers will employ any tactic necessary, including lying/making up facts on behalf of their client, to get the right result and that this is part and parcel of the profession.