This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-marital-coercion-equality

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Vicky Pryce defence of marital coercion 'incompatible with gender equality' Vicky Pryce defence of marital coercion 'incompatible with gender equality'
(10 days later)
Vicky Pryce was a well-educated, affluent and powerful woman, and a distinguished economist whose job had been to advise on the affairs of nations at top government level.Vicky Pryce was a well-educated, affluent and powerful woman, and a distinguished economist whose job had been to advise on the affairs of nations at top government level.
Yet she chose to hide behind her status as a wife in fighting this case.Yet she chose to hide behind her status as a wife in fighting this case.
She ran the defence of marital coercion, and may be one of the last able to do so. Critics believe this rare and archaic defence is incompatible with gender equality, and may not survive any gay marriage legislation, as it is available only to wives.She ran the defence of marital coercion, and may be one of the last able to do so. Critics believe this rare and archaic defence is incompatible with gender equality, and may not survive any gay marriage legislation, as it is available only to wives.
Her case could also stand as a test case, as, unusually, the judge ruled that the burden of proving coercion lay not with the defence, as is usual, because of conflict with article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 on "presumption of innocence".Her case could also stand as a test case, as, unusually, the judge ruled that the burden of proving coercion lay not with the defence, as is usual, because of conflict with article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 on "presumption of innocence".
So it was up to the prosecution to prove coercion did not exist.So it was up to the prosecution to prove coercion did not exist.
In running this defence, Pryce presented herself as a woman whose willpower could be "overborne" when confronted by a husband demanding she take his speeding points.In running this defence, Pryce presented herself as a woman whose willpower could be "overborne" when confronted by a husband demanding she take his speeding points.
To exemplify a history of spousal bullying, she revealed two occasions when her then husband, the now former cabinet minister Chris Huhne, 58, had tried to coerce her into having an abortion – one complied with, the other defied.To exemplify a history of spousal bullying, she revealed two occasions when her then husband, the now former cabinet minister Chris Huhne, 58, had tried to coerce her into having an abortion – one complied with, the other defied.
It was, the prosecutor Andrew Edis QC argued, one of myriad problems the prosecution was up against in disproving such a defence – that most likely such pressure takes place in the privacy of the home, with no independent witnesses.It was, the prosecutor Andrew Edis QC argued, one of myriad problems the prosecution was up against in disproving such a defence – that most likely such pressure takes place in the privacy of the home, with no independent witnesses.
Marital coercion dates to an old legal presumption, when women had no rights and no independent means of support, so any wife committing a crime in the presence of her husband had a "presumption of innocence" under coercion.Marital coercion dates to an old legal presumption, when women had no rights and no independent means of support, so any wife committing a crime in the presence of her husband had a "presumption of innocence" under coercion.
It was amended in 1925 when that "presumption of innocence" was abolished. But the right to use it as a defence remained – except for offences of murder and treason – and it is still valid today, though there have been only a handful of cases.It was amended in 1925 when that "presumption of innocence" was abolished. But the right to use it as a defence remained – except for offences of murder and treason – and it is still valid today, though there have been only a handful of cases.
The last high-profile defendant to employ it was Anne Darwin, wife of the back-from-the-dead canoeist John, who faked his death so they could claim £250,000 in insurance money. Both were jailed for six years in 2008.The last high-profile defendant to employ it was Anne Darwin, wife of the back-from-the-dead canoeist John, who faked his death so they could claim £250,000 in insurance money. Both were jailed for six years in 2008.
In the 21st century, however, many believe it has no place in English law and is in conflict with human rights conventions.In the 21st century, however, many believe it has no place in English law and is in conflict with human rights conventions.
Edis told the judge that it was "antiquated", an "anomaly from a different age" and it was questionable whether "it has any life for the future, because it is hard to see how it could survive any legislation introducing gay marriage".Edis told the judge that it was "antiquated", an "anomaly from a different age" and it was questionable whether "it has any life for the future, because it is hard to see how it could survive any legislation introducing gay marriage".
Central to Pryce's defence was her evidence that Huhne had stood over her, "pen in hand", while forcing her to fill in the form accepting she was the nominated driver. This was crucial, as the special defence depends on the husband being "physically present" when the offence is committed.Central to Pryce's defence was her evidence that Huhne had stood over her, "pen in hand", while forcing her to fill in the form accepting she was the nominated driver. This was crucial, as the special defence depends on the husband being "physically present" when the offence is committed.
Edis argued the defence was incompatible with gender equality and the freedom of women. "The idea that a person's criminal ability may depend upon whether they are a man or woman, or married or cohabiting, is to all modern sensibilities absurd," he said.Edis argued the defence was incompatible with gender equality and the freedom of women. "The idea that a person's criminal ability may depend upon whether they are a man or woman, or married or cohabiting, is to all modern sensibilities absurd," he said.
"But it is part of our law, however much some people, when they hear about it, may devoutly wish that it wasn't.""But it is part of our law, however much some people, when they hear about it, may devoutly wish that it wasn't."
Julian Knowles QC, for Pryce, said it was a matter for parliament, not the courts. "If parliament doesn't think it has a place, then it is for parliament to say so."Julian Knowles QC, for Pryce, said it was a matter for parliament, not the courts. "If parliament doesn't think it has a place, then it is for parliament to say so."
He added that Edis's submission was "a point for the floor of the House of Commons" and not for the judge.He added that Edis's submission was "a point for the floor of the House of Commons" and not for the judge.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.