George Courmouzis appears at trial 'like rabbit out of a hat' to say he knew Chris Huhne had forced his sister to take points
Vicky Pryce's older brother appeared "like a rabbit out of a hat" to give evidence at her trial, as lawyers began their closing speeches in the case.
George Courmouzis, who works in sports marketing and is based in Athens, told Southwark crown court on Monday his sister had been forced against her will by her then husband, Chris Huhne, to take his speeding points a decade ago.
But Andrew Edis QC prosecuting, told the jury Courmouzis's name had not been mentioned by Pryce during her first collapsed trial, and nor had he been called as a witness.
He said, "he appears like a rabbit out of a hat, having been entirely silent during the first trial".
Pryce, 60, an economist, has pleaded not guilty to perverting the course of justice by taking Huhne's speeding points in 2003, and is claiming the defence of marital coercion.
Courmouzis, who lived partly in Greece and partly in Notting Hill, west London, in 2003, said he had a clear recollection of Pryce's reaction at the time, saying he remembered her irritation over the fact she had been "forced by Chris to take speeding points because he had reached his limit" and said she had been irritated by the "manner in which she was presented with no option but to take his points because she had been nominated by him and was presented by a fait accompli".. "That nomination, in her opinion, was irreversible or carried few options," he said.
His sister experienced "frustration, mostly anger, disappointment", he said, adding that he had between three to five conversations with her at the time. The subject came up later, after Huhne lost his licence anyway when he was caught using his mobile phone while driving.
Courmouzis said his sister's frustration "became more pronounced because I guess in many ways it was futile to have taken the points, but mostly there was behaviour of recklessness I suppose that was being repeated".
He added: "It was a point of contention between them concerning driving habits and the fact that she was forced to so something beyond her will and his behaviour was not remedied by it."
He continued: "The bottom line is the fact she was presented with an issue after the fact, felt in a corner, and he was physically there overseeing that it happened."
Edis asked him if he had discussed the defence of marital coercion with Pryce, because the evidence he had just given about Huhne being physically present had "relevance" to that defence.
Coumourzis said he had not: "That I recollect completely and clearly from 2003."
Edis continued: "Do you have a real memory of what happened in 2003. Or have you just come out of family loyalty to support her defence?".
He replied: "I was here [in London], I remember it. We shared it."
In his closing speech to the jury, Edis described Pryce as a capable, manipulative and intelligent woman.
He said Pryce was, "in the 21st century, a woman with her own income and with a protection of law for the woman's freedom to choose what she does, taking the decisions".
He added: "It's a consequence of the equality that now exists between the sexes, arguably as a result of her efforts and people like her carrying the banner over the last 30 to 40 years, it's a consequence of that equality that women are free to choose and that women like her are accountable for those choices just as they would be if they were a man.
"Because in modern times, a true case of marital coercion would be very, very rare. It would require circumstances altogether different from these, where pressure was more significant and where the woman was more easily bullied and really did have fewer choices.
"Miss Pryce knows and has always known, that she has many, many more choices available to her than most people in this country."
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.guardian.co.uk |
