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.