There's something about the Liberal Democrats and their precursors that yields titillating evidential puzzles. This time the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said that having reviewed the evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service believed there was enough to bring charges:
"The essence of the charges is that, between March and May 2003, Mr Huhne, having allegedly committed a speeding offence, falsely informed the investigating authorities that Ms Pryce had been the driver of the vehicle in question, and she falsely accepted that she was the driver."
So we have an alleged speeding offence; false information offered on the driver's identity; and a false acceptance of that false information on the identity of the driver.
She drove. Yes, I drove. Both assertions are stated to be false.
Who drove?
Rarely is attracting police attention a good idea. If caught doing something that would be far worse if all the circumstances were discovered, take the lower penalty and shut up. The car having been caught speeding Huhne should have coughed up, including for taxis and drivers for a bit, and let well alone. Now he says:
"I am innocent of these charges and I intend to fight this in the courts and I am confident that a jury will agree."
It is difficult to imagine any outcome to this trial that is good news for Huhne if he succeeds in showing he was not the driver of the car. At the very least he hasn't got the sense he was born with and isn't going to be invited back into any serious political role.
The voters of Eastleigh seem most unfortunate in their elected representatives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I wonder if it's Pryce who is in trouble
- she has signed a form saying she was driving
- she seems to have signed an affidavit saying she wasn't
it's pretty indisputable that one or other of those statements was an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
On the other hand Huhne may well be safe. To convict him a jury needs to be sure he was driving. Pryce's evidence can hardly be relied on. Absent that he might get off.
Pryce might call alibi evidence to show that it wasn't her driving. But perhaps Huhne thinks he can do the same.. It's going to be fun watching
I imagine, Bo, you would have to sign-up that you were driving - otherwise we could all just say 'X was driving' and get away with it, without any of the trikki business of involving others in our bad behaviour.
The first form is just part and parcel of agreeing to misbehave.
The affidavit is another matter. That affidavit was part and parcel of correcting a wrong act she had undertaken, for whatever reasons, earlier.
Post a Comment