Looking at the story in a bit more detail here it is clear that she deserves the clink as much as he does.

There was nothing noble about her telling the truth, no remorse for lying nothing.

She just wanted to nail him and allowed herself to get marriage guidance counselling from a Sunday times reporter. Stupid cow.

She has destroyed him and seriously damaged her son by her actions.

I can understand revenge but to think about it the way she did and still pursue her course of action was bonkers.

No winners here but a good example to us all that if you cannot keep it in your trousers things will come back to haunt you eventually.

I hadn't realised he was on 9 points already when he got his wife to take the rap so I was wondering what the motive was for this. I was wondering if it just a case of a public figure being paranoid that any offence even a 3 point motoring offence would be seriously damaging to his political career. We do seem to expect public figures to have zero flaws and perfect character but as he was deliberately trying to avoid a driving ban that is that excuse out of the window.

Didn't work anyway as he was pulled over some time later for using a mobile phone while driving. That suggests to me he has a general disrespect for the law and add that to his attempts to get the case thrown out, his persistent protestations of innocence puts this right up there if not worse than the expense rows.

He was being told in private by friends (including a judge) the case would be thrown out so I reckon one reason he took it as far as he did was bad advice but even so, given he clearly knew he was guilty taking that tack was a desperate and yet calculated move to try and bury the whole thing. That should mean he does not have a way back into politics ever.

What offence did she commit by spilling the beans whether she did it for revenge or not?

She is charged with perverting the course of justice, not "revenge". Her defence is she was coerced by her former husband into committing the crime.

The prosecution has already mentioned the revenge aspect presumably to try and say she was at the time a willing partner in the deception and only became "unwilling" and ready to expose him because of her husbands infidelity not because she was an unwilling partner to the cover up.

Given the circumstances of their separation I am surprised she didn't just chop his manhood off!

Apparently he got a phone call off the News of the World saying they were going to expose him as having an affair while his wife was watching a world cup football game. He told her at half time he was having an affair and he had 30 minutes to head off the damage so went to his study, decided to leave her, drafted a letter saying he was in a meaningful relationship with Carina Trimingham then went off to the gym. Absolutely ruthless treatment of his wife to save his career.

So I for one fully understand the revenge motive for his ex wife speaking to the Sunday Times but it doesn't mean she wasn't coerced into the crime in the first place. The jury is being asked to decide if coercion is credible or not.

Maybe, IF he told them he actually did it, but do you think he mentioned that bit? Or that if he couldn't get the case halted, he would plead guilty?

The [irelevant[/i advice must surely have been that of his legal team, anyway. I don't think for a second that anything in a conversation with some mate, judge or not, would exactly carry much weight against a top team of lawyers headed by a £20K-a-day QC. And we don't know, nor ever will, what they advised.

I doubt he did but all I am saying is his mates including a judge thought the case would be thrown out presumably based on the arguments of not getting a fair trail and because the evidence of the speeding offence no longer existed. They won't have assumed it would be thrown out if he told them he did it would they.



We know what tack his legal team took already. I would suggest such comments from his mate the judge would have just reinforced his belief that the tack his legal team had taken was going to work. Hence another reason to keep going with the lie.

It would be interesting to know if his legal team did know if he was guilty and so designed a defence they felt would get him off.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

Huhne is a lying toad. He was prepared to keep lying to save his arrogant skin even at the risk of having his ex wife put in prison had he won (or lost)

Although she is also guilty as charged I feel sure that there would have been coercion by the ambitious LibDem leader in waiting (what is it about Liberals?) Therefore the court will take into account her plea in mitigation.

He committed the driving offence, he cheated on his wife (with a lesbian! ... yes what is it with Liberals?) he lied and lied and lied again (he probably lied about climate change too!

) and in doing so put his family in a terrible mess. So no sympathy for this little creep please.

His son's texts were good though.

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



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.



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?



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.

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.



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?



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.

Absolute nonsense.

Slightly milder than my thoughts

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.

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

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.

In the Hulme case they didn't put forward a different story. They were arguing technicalities which suggests to me they knew he was guilty. Otherwise why not present evidence of innocence?

Regardless of that Hulme was clearly hoping "justice" could be secured if he paid enough to employ a top QC. Legal Aid anyone?

It's not their responsibility to provide evidence of innocence. Their responsibility is to refute evidence of guilt. Or in this case to argue that a fair trial could not take place. None of this suggests that they [iknew[/i he was guilty.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/07/nick-clegg-chris-huhne_n_2637229.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics[/url

£17,000 severence pay should help ease the anguish, or buy a bloody good holiday to lie low for a while.

Total bullsh!!t from you as I now expect.

As was clear, I was stating (and repeat) that the claim of the OP which (to quote it)
"encourage defendants and witnesses to lie in court on a routine basis"

"A better way of phrasing" is absolutely nothing to do with "encouraging to lie" and even a numbskulled dolt like you bloody well knows it.

Perhaps you need to run a class for moderators in comprehending plain English.

There are not many who would need to attend, I'll grant.