Perverting the Course of Justice and Marital Coercion

This week former cabinet minister, Chris Huhne, has pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice by allowing his then wife to take speeding penalty points for him in 2003.

Huhne, who has now also resigned as an MP, accepted that he wanted to avoid the penalty points because they would lead to him losing his driving licence when added to the penalty points he already had. He now faces a possible prison sentence.

Meanwhile, his former wife, Vicky Pryce, continues to deny that she perverted the course of justice. It is alleged that she informed the police she was driving the vehicle when it was caught speeding so that Huhne avoided prosecution.

The court heard that the speeding offence only became public knowledge in 2011 after Huhne told Pryce about an extra-marital affair. The court was told that Pryce wanted revenge for the affair and provided the story to the Sunday Times to ‘nail him’.

Pryce will now use the marital coercion defence. She will have to prove that she was pressured by Huhne into accepting the speeding penalty points on his behalf. The trial continues.

Marital Coercion

The defence of marital coercion is a curious one, based on an old legal presumption that any crime committed by a wife in the presence of their husband was under coercion. The presumption was abolished by section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, but a defence remained. In any case apart from treason and murder it is a good defence for a wife to say an offence was committed in the presence of their husband under their coercion. The wife has to show on the balance of probabilities (that it is more likely that not) that their will was overcome by the coercion of the husband to commit the offence.

It is worth asking if we think such a defence is justified in the 21^st century. After all we are all protected by defence of duress if we commit an offence (not murder, attempted murder or treason) because of a threat of serious harm. The Law Commission, the body that reviews the law, has called for the abolition of the defence, saying it is not suited to modern conditions. I certainly agree.