Vicky Pryce’s retrial will begin on Monday (Picture: AFP/Getty)

A judge dismissed the jury trying Chris Huhne’s ex-wife because they failed to understand what they were supposed to be doing.

In an extraordinary outburst, Mr Justice Sweeney sent home the eight women and four men saying they had shown ‘fundamental deficits in understanding’.

He spoke out after the jurors sent him ten questions during their 14 hours of deliberations over the case of Vicky Pryce.

Pryce, 60, of Clapham, south London, denied a charge of perverting the course of justice on the grounds of marital coercion for taking his penalty points a decade ago.


Among their queries, they asked whether they could convict on the basis of something they had not heard in court and what was meant by ‘reasonable doubt’.



The judge said: ‘In well over 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this at this stage, never.’

His decision to dismiss the jury leaves Pryce to face a retrial at Southwark crown court on Monday.

Chris Huhne will be sentenced after the retrial of his Vicky Pryce (Picture: Getty)

The decision also means that former Liberal Democrat energy secretary Huhne will not be sentenced before the Eastleigh by-election triggered by his resignation as an MP.

Huhne, 58, has already admitted perverting the course of justice by getting his then-wife to take speeding points for him in 2003.

Pryce, 60, denied the charge saying she was coerced by her husband into breaking the law.

The judge tried to give the jury detailed answers to the questions but two hours later it was still deadlocked.

Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting, said: ‘At least some jurors do not seem to have grasped it.’

The jurors looked like they were ‘going off on a wander on their own’ said Julian Young, a solicitor advocate specialising in criminal law.

‘It looks like they’ve got themselves in a heck of a muddle over this.

‘The judge gave quite standard and proper answers.’

MORE: Vicky Pryce jury questions: Shaking our faith in the jury trial system?

One of the questions asked whether a juror could come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented at Southwark crown court. ‘It does seem as if they were trying to do some detective work of their own. That’s not their job,’ added Mr Young.

Juries are routinely warned not to conduct their own research into cases but Mr Young said the internet had become a ‘substantial problem’.

Mr Justice Sweeney sent the jury home saying their questions showed ‘absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding’.

Barrister John Cooper QC claimed the number of queries was ‘unusual but not unheard of’.

He added: ‘The majority of people up and down the country who serve on juries take their responsibilities very seriously.

‘I often think the fact that jurors are asking questions shows they are engaged and taking the task seriously.’

Anand Doobay, a solicitor at Peters & Peters, said the jury may have been confused by Pryce’s rarely used defence of ‘marital coercion’.

Before they were discharged, jurors had asked Mr Justice Sweeney ten questions. They were:



Question one: ‘You have defined the defence of marital coercion on page five of the jury bundle and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand on the definition, provide examples of what may fall within the defence, specifically “will was overborne” and does the defence require violence or physical threat?’

Answer: ‘The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.’

Question two: ‘In the scenario that the defendant may be guilty but there may not be enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the notice of intent to prosecute to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be, not guilty or unable or not safe to bring a verdict?’

Answer: ‘Turning to page three of my written directions, the direction is combining the burden and standard of proof with the need for a majority verdict. If, having carefully considered all of the evidence, at least ten of you feel sure of the guilt of the defendant then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if after careful consideration at least ten of you were feeling less than sure of guilt, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. And so it follows that if at least ten of you are not sure, the appropriate verdict is one of not guilty.’


Question three: ‘If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so can inferences/speculation be drawn on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so?’

Answer: ‘The drawing of an inference is a permissible process. Speculation is not. In this case the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed, and where you are willing to draw inferences from that is entirely a matter for you.’

Question four: ‘Can you define what is reasonable doubt?’

Answer: ‘The prosecution must make you feel sure beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with, beyond the written directions [he had already given them]’.

Question five: ‘Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?’

Answer: ‘The answer to that question is a firm no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.’

Question six: ‘Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn’t bring witnesses from the time of the offence, such as the au pair or neighbours?’

Answer: ‘You must not, as I have now emphasised many times, speculate on what witnesses who have not been called might have said or draw inferences from their absence. Her evidence is that no one else, other than Mr Huhne, was present when she signed the form.’


Question seven: ‘Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?’

Answer: ‘There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence and there is no burden on her to prove anything at all. The defendant does not have an obligation to present a defence, in this case the defendant has given evidence and it is for you to judge the evidence from her in the same way you would any other witness.’

Question eight: ‘Can we speculate about the events at the time Miss Pryce sent the form or what was in her mind when she sent the form?’

Answer: ‘The answer to that is an equally firm no. The position in a criminal is that no one must speculate. There is a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inference, which is the drawing of common-sense conclusions from the facts of which you are also sure. Speculation is guesswork. That is not the same as inference at all.’

Question nine: ‘The jury is considering the facts provided but is continuing to ask the questions raised by the police. Given that the case has come to court without answers to these questions please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury should count on to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.’

Answer: ‘You must decide the case on the evidence [put before the court]. It is for you to decide which you consider to be important, truthful and reliable then decide what common-sense conclusions you can safely draw. It is not for me to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important and which are not. That is a matter for you to decide.’

Question ten: ‘Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?’

Answer: ‘This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did. Answering this question will not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case. I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case.’

Mr Justice Sweeney went on: ‘I want to repeat the absolutely vital importance of your following my directions of law to the letter and the fact that it is an equally important part of each of your individual duties to ensure that all of you do follow my directions of law to the letter.

‘Without doing so, you are simply not in a position to reach a true verdict according to the evidence one way or the other.

‘It is essential that each of you ensure that my directions of law are faithfully applied by all of you. If, for whatever reason, any one or more of you feel you do not understand my directions, then it would be wholly wrong to reach a verdict one way or the other.

‘Equally, the duty of all of you is to ensure that no one of your number does reach a conclusion one way or another unless they are confident they are able to understand and follow to the letter my directions. It does come in some cases that jurors are simply not able to agree in sufficient numbers on the verdict.

‘If, after further consideration, you find yourselves in a position where you are simply not able to agree, then you must of course have the courage to say so. I hope all that is clear.’