|
Post by Strontium Dog on Feb 8, 2023 16:18:20 GMT
Providing false statements was a serious offence when it was Chris Huhne. Funny, that.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Feb 8, 2023 16:23:44 GMT
Providing false statements was a serious offence when it was Chris Huhne. Funny, that. The fact heavy costs will most likely be awarded against him however makes it way less likely, as he would have already be punished in some way (it also acts as a deterrent).
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Feb 8, 2023 17:14:02 GMT
The fact heavy costs will most likely be awarded against him however makes it way less likely, as he would have already be punished in some way (it also acts as a deterrent). True. However, there are five people who could be considered to be subject to a Section 160 enquiry and a further number (It may be 3) who also did false statements. Whilst I am at it I will link to my tweet of a few days ago.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Feb 8, 2023 17:42:31 GMT
Providing false statements was a serious offence when it was Chris Huhne. Funny, that. The fact heavy costs will most likely be awarded against him however makes it way less likely, as he would have already be punished in some way (it also acts as a deterrent). Why should it? The only reason there are any costs at all is because he took legal action against his opponents. There ought to be not only costs awarded against him but punitive ones.
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Feb 8, 2023 17:46:13 GMT
There ought to be not only costs awarded against him but punitive ones. One would expect indemnity costs. However, those are only really whatever costs are incurred and although more expensive, not actually a punishment. Indemnity costs are often around 50%ish more than taxed costs.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 8, 2023 19:22:53 GMT
Given the likely costs order, and the high degree of deterrent publicity, together with the very low level of the crime (small boxes of dates), I doubt the public interest test for a prosecution would be met. Not perjury or vexacious litigation, then? Vexatious litigation has to be persistent. The offence that he could be charged with would presumably be contempt of court? I'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Feb 8, 2023 19:46:08 GMT
Not perjury or vexacious litigation, then? Vexatious litigation has to be persistent. The offence that he could be charged with would presumably be contempt of court? I'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged. Point taken about this being a one-off rather than a pattern. It just feels as though some action should be taken as he launched this case knowing it to be a lie.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 8, 2023 19:52:26 GMT
Vexatious litigation has to be persistent. The offence that he could be charged with would presumably be contempt of court? I'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged. Point taken about this being a one-off rather than a pattern. It just feels as though some action should be taken as he launched this case knowing it to be a lie. As I said, i'd be very surprised if he wasn't charged and he certainly should be in my view. Not least because not to do so might encourage others to attempt the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 24, 2023 19:02:48 GMT
|
|