**"In the UK, Vicky Pryce is facing a retrial after, at least some, of the jury in her case turned out to have no understanding of what it was supposed to do. You cannot stop information about alleged offenders from getting out ahead of a trial and you may not be able to trust a prospective juror who says they have no opinion in advance of hearing the evidence."**
For those reasons I doubt that she will be able to have a fair and unbiased trial. This has been all over the media for weeks and opinion as to whether "she done it" is rife. Plus, of course, there is the added cost of a re-trial.
The CPS and police quite rightly treat attempts to pervert the course of justice vigorously, but in this instance I wonder whether the public interest would actually be served by putting her on trial again. The evidence has (or should have been) gone through in minute detail and no verdict reached and may not be again so what really is the point?
Huhne is going to jail and should be ordered to pay all costs in HIS trial.