Will 'Marital Coercion' Be Vicky Pryce's Defence?
Jerry Hayes has an interesting take on the question Iain Dale posed yesterday on Vicky Pryce's plea.
4 Feb 2012, 17:40
Chris Huhne
I suspect that the only person to come out with any shred of decency out of the Huhne affair is Nick Clegg’s wife Miriam, who has offered support and solace and a place to stay to Vicky Pryce. Good on her. But despite the paeans of praise for Huhne emanating from Fortress Clegg, I would be amazed if everyone in the cabinet from Cameron downwards is not delighted to see the back of him. At the end of the day he was nothing more than a schemer, perpetually on the look out for number one and quite prepared to brief against colleagues of either parties if it suited him. Whatever the verdict, it is the end of his political career.
Conspiring to pervert the course of public justice is a very serious offence with a maximum of life imprisonment, but for giving false information to avoid prosecution, the going rate is roughly six to twelve months. It is possible, but, unlikely, that such a sentence could be suspended.
Iain Dale poses an interesting question about what would happen if Vicky Pryce pleads guilty. Well, it depends on what basis, but if she gave evidence against Huhne saying that she committed the offence at his behest it would be admissible against him. As they are no longer married she now becomes a compellable witness. However, there is some fascinating and ancient law which might just provide her with a very runnable defence. Her team should have a peek at section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 which provides the rarely used defence of matrimonial coercion.
“Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of and under the coercion of, the husband.”
Pryce would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that Huhne was present, when the offence took place, that they were married, that her will was overborne by the wishes of her husband whether this was as a result of physical force or the threat thereof or of moral force. The Court of Appeal has held that coercion went beyond persuasion out of loyalty, but it need not involve physical force or the threat thereof. To succeed she would have to show that her will was overborne by the wishes of her husband.
By charging a count of conspiracy the prosecution have to prove that an agreement was made to pervert the course of public justice and nothing more. As the offence is one of agreement there is sound legal argument for her to be able to prove her husband’s presence at the time, hence bringing her within the ambit of the defence that section 47 provides.
The beauty of this defence is that it is so much easier to prove than duress.
I haven’t got a clue what either of their defences are and this is pure speculation. But it is going to a very interesting case. And sadly very messy.
* Jerry Hayes is a barrister in criminal law
The author
Jerry Hayes
Jerry Hayes is a former Conservative MP and leading barrister defending and prosecuting high profile cases
Full profile →
Comments (9)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
Good to have some legal analysis on this issue rather than punters' opinions. It is conceivable that Huhne could be cleared?
05/02/2012 19:00Can you really imagine a modern woman of her status suggesting that she was so "coerced" by her husband in such a situation as to have lost her freewill?
Even were it to succeed, an "I'm only a weak woman" strategy would make her both a laughing stock and social pariah in the circles in which she moves.
It is far more likely (had she indeed acted as alleged, as to which I make no judgement) that she would use "loyalty" as mitigation - very effective if linked to a guilty plea and full explanation of the facts.
05/02/2012 19:19By charging a count of conspiracy the prosecution have to prove that an agreement was made to pervert the course of public justice and nothing more. As the offence is one of agreement there is sound legal argument for her to be able to prove her husband’s presence at the time, hence bringing her within the ambit of the defence that section 47 provides.
Nothing in the press release about conspiracy:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_statements/cps_statement_on_huhne_and_pryce/
A very good question; why not? Nor, indeed, why no fall back of s5(b) Perjury Act 1911.
05/02/2012 20:04I have the horrible idea that Vicky Pryce is like a man who, at the very he saws through the branch that his ladder was leaning on, thinks: "Damn. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that?"
05/02/2012 22:45Very good point Bob R However, indictment wouldn't be drafted yet. Would be bad practice to indict on joint enterprise on this sort of case.Best not to comment on everyone else for fear of landing a call from the AG!
06/02/2012 09:04@Jerry.
06/02/2012 16:17Surely it would be perverse for the DPP to hold a press conference to explain inter alia why it took eight months to commence these procedings, and then go ahead and indict on different charges. Further, according to the press release (linked above), the summonses have already been obtained, presumably on the basis of the announcement; viz. 2 X PCoJ. They could, I suppose, add others, but that would seem utterly slipshod after eight months, apart from anything else.
I suppose this is Rene Barclay's and Sue Hemming's first S172 PCoJ case. Perhaps they should have asked Essex CPS how to do it.
Ah BobR, DPP has wisely kept his options open. You mention the area of prosecution and perhaps the charge, but never the wording of the indictment. As for John Hemmings MP: a thoroughly good bloke whom I once represented in the Administrative Court over the incompatibility of the Postal Ballot Regulations with European law. This was very unusual as I had represented the two Labour councilors who were accused in the Aston Election Petition and gave John a very rough time in the witness box. Before anyone anyone has a crack at me, let me say I represented the former for a reduced fee and the latter pro bono. After I had lost the former, it was only right, as a matter of principle, that I tried to uphold what the Commissioner had said about our system namely, that it resembled a banana republic. I failed and the system is still ripe for corruption.
06/02/2012 21:20I was wondering whether she would plead guilty on the basis of joint enterprise only, hoping to escape a custodial sentence.
I think if she leans on "coercion" in its broadest sense it can put Huhne in an extremely awkward position
He can't say both:
1. It never happened
2. She was a willing party
Nor can he credibly say she really was driving if she's plead guilty to PCoJ.
So the escape hatch seems very much open.
07/02/2012 11:30if VP pleads guilty, that's merely a statement that she WASN'T driving. That doesn't amount to evidence that Huhne was.
I think Huhne will say nothing and his lawyers will say
1) VP signed a form that she was driving, and a affidavit that she wasn't. Therefore she is an admitted liar and absolutely nothing she says can be relied upon now.
2) We maintain Huhne wasn't driving, and you have no evidence whatsoever to show he was (see 1)
07/02/2012 11:49