Donate SIGN UP

Chis Huhne

Avatar Image
sir.prize | 18:04 Mon 11th Mar 2013 | News
68 Answers
As expected. Cos he's a Cabinet minister, Huhne gets light sentence of 8 months. Probably serve 4 months.

Also possible 10% reduction from sentence 'cos he pleaded guilty. Huh - he repeatedly denied it and didn't plead guilty till the end. Pity he wasn't given 4 years.

Damned disgraceful verdict.
Gravatar

Answers

61 to 68 of 68rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
not really, he should do the time, political career over perhaps, so it should be, as other politicians should be when they lie, not sure that has actually happened to many over the expenses scandal. He can go back to commerce, business, he isn't short of a few quid.
"I'm surprised he didn't opt for the driver awareness scheme which allows you to dodge your points."

The speeding offence was committed in 2003; The National Speed Awareness Scheme didn't exist before 2006.

So, unless he was driving a DeLorean...
perhaps if had he wouldn't have been caught..
Let’s clear up a few points:

“I'm surprised he didn't opt for the driver awareness scheme …”

He already had nine points on his licence (all of which were for speeding, I believe). The “Speed awareness course” is not offered to drivers who have nine points and who are liable to be disqualified under “totting up”.

“a white lie that got out of hand..”

Definition of a white lie: “An often trivial, diplomatic or well-intentioned untruth; a minor or unimportant lie…”

I don’t think the lie told in this case qualifies as trivial or unimportant. It was designed to avoid proper justice being served.

“There are murderers, rapists and serious criminals who got less of a sentence than Huhne and Pryce.”

Find me examples of convicted murderers or rapists who received less than eight months custody. There seems to be a popular misunderstanding of the purpose of prison. It now seems common for people to believe that custody should only be reserved for “dangerous” prisoners. Not so. One of the four reasons for sentencing a criminal is punishment. This applies whether those convicted are “dangerous” or not. Serious offences warrant serious sanctions which provide punishment and the most serious of those available is custody.
interestingly i was looking at one news source that reckons some are coming out in favour of upping their sentences to 12 months or longer...
and that Huhne is having a bit of a tough time in nick...
Should have saved a whole lot of money and just shot them! Sorry, just my ways of saying I couldn't care less about them.
BBC website

Tory MP David Burrowes has asked Dominic Grieve to consider appealing against the eight-month jail terms.
The attorney general - the government's senior law officer - must now respond, explaining his decision.
Mr Grieve must decide by 8 April - 28 days after the original sentence - whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, which has the power to either increase the sentences or leave them the same.
A spokesman for Mr Grieve confirmed that the attorney general's office had received a request to review the sentences.
He said: "One of the law officers will consider whether they should be referred to the Court of Appeal as possibly unduly lenient."

61 to 68 of 68rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4

Do you know the answer?

Chis Huhne

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.