Celt Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Who said anything about a conspiracy theory. The point was meant as a touch of a laught, an irony (the word you forum folk just luurvvv). A judge traipsing to the tower hand in hand with with the Numero Uno to lock people (a person?) up. Oh what a laugh we had. You see, right, . . . . . it was requested very early on that the case be heard by an off-island judge, but those requesting this were made out to be - oh so ridiculous. As if . . . as if, our pal Moyles'ee could ever be other than impartial. The mere suggestion!!!!!!!! Mickey-mickey-M insisted he is soooo impartial and that he could well take took on the reigns of this case. So you folk of the 'Happy Holidays Isle of Man' have now been shafted yet again big, big, time by the big, big, boys. Yet again. When is you ever going to learn? When is you ever going to learn about democracy? Ah well, I'll be saying 'Hiya' to yous all as I drive past in me latest Merc/BMW etc. As the kiddie winkies traipse off to King Bills, and we prepare for Andora. The Trust Fund where all the big bucks is going is fine thank you! You lot are this: spineless pathetic Yo tok lik dis cos u tink us black folk dont no how toe speck de mans talk ? Oar yu tink yoo de cool brother cos yow speack like us good folk do? Yo fulla shit man as yoo notting to us good folk an awl yoo do is tock shoite and mek us good bro's look tik. STFU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Maybe Thiewane ? could tell us, is it right that Mr Moyles court can only hand down a fine of no more than £1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Not true Six months prison per charge maximum, can run cionsecutively, so 2 yeras max here. Unlimited fines If thinks power not enough can send to Deemstaer to setence any way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I'm not very good on legal stuff so, serious question: can she be made to repay the grant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 That depends When some hoteliers on the prom were convicted of same sort of thing with fire precaution grants 15 yeras or more ago they were made to pay back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Not true Six months prison per charge maximum, can run cionsecutively, so 2 yeras max here. Unlimited fines If thinks power not enough can send to Deemstaer to setence any way Is there a schedule of sentences and somewhere that sets out when a jury is used, when HB or deemster etc. is judging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 No Most offences can bed dealt with by either magistrates, High bailiff or Deemster A very few are Mags and HB only A similar few are Deemster and jury only Depends on severity Murder = Deemster and Jury failing to observe rosd sign = mags or HB Theft. small amout 1st offender mags or HB large amount recidivist Deemster and jury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 My guess is that Mr Moyle will Fine her £600 Let her keep the grant Award her, her Costs Prosicution not awarded costs Resulting in the Taxpayer picking up the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 keeping or recalling the grant is nothing to do with these proceedings and nothing to do with Mr Moyle She has been convicted, costs normally follow the event I suspect he may not order her to pay prosecution costs, they will be a lot less than her costs. Her big punishment is the publicity, her husbands ruined career, the costs of defending herself , ulimately only partially successfully £1million, her lawyer said remember) plus the fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 What happens if the advocate doesn't get paid. Can she sue? What remedies for working for less than the going rate, perhaps even for nothing, are available to her? Presumably there was no legal aid? How has a million pounds been totted up - Julie didn't engage a QC plus a junior! Looks like another civil action may take place to recover the legal costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 So Thieawin, just a general question, but how far should someone who has been accused and charged with a criminal offence, particularly fraud, go to clear their name? This is a general question and nothing to do with this case. But it strikes me that fraud is often accused (SFO have major problems in this area) and what does the accused do? Do they just admit the offences and take the rap, or do they follow legal advice which often involves defending the case and necessarily involves huge legal bills with no real outcome because of the very nature of fraud trials? Fraud is one of those areas where there are so many shades of grey that it is impossible to guess the outcome of a trial from either side, and yet, because of its nature so much time and money is spent on establishing a persuasive, but always inconclusive, argument on either side. And that is what it boils down to in the end, power of argument; invariably there is no CCTV footage, no eye witness accounts of the deed being perpetrated, it just comes down to a feeling of someone has done something naughty and we must bring the whole power of the legal machine down upon them but at whose cost? I gave evidence at a SFO prosecuted fraud trial a couple of years' ago. There were four defendants and each had a team of lawyers in court. I was paid (i.e. my expenses as per the SFO guidelines) by the prosecution to attend and this included travel and hotel. Also a nanny because I had to take my children with me as there was no one that could look after them here. All in all, my expenses claim exceeded £1,500 and that truly was without ripping the arse out of it; all meals were paid for by me and the cost of entertaining the kids with the nanny were met out of my pocket. The SFO made all the arrangements because they thought, despite having told the investigating officers the truth as we saw it many, many times, that I was a valuable witness. That case cost immense amounts, far in excess of anything in the Corkill case, and the outcome? There was no case to answer! Hmm! If the investigating officers had listened to what we were saying all along, perhaps that expense would never have been incurred. But, no, there is a fraud here, we don't exactly know what it is but there is definitely something, and while that mindset is present all the defendants, and the witnesses in my own case, can do is pay dearly one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does anyone know what time this kicks off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 What happens if the advocate doesn't get paid. Can she sue? What remedies for working for less than the going rate, perhaps even for nothing, are available to her? Presumably there was no legal aid? How has a million pounds been totted up - Julie didn't engage a QC plus a junior! Looks like another civil action may take place to recover the legal costs. 1 Yes, there is no going rate, she can only recover what she and client agreed, limited to a reasonable sum per hour and reasonabel expense of time. She has to certify she is not claiming, if there is an order out of public funds, more than she has charged her client. If it had been legal aid costs would not have arisen 2. I don't know. Its just the figure Mrs Jones gave to the court 3. I suspect that costs will have been billed and paid monthly since arrest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 So Thieawin, just a general question, but how far should someone who has been accused and charged with a criminal offence, particularly fraud, go to clear their name? This is a general question and nothing to do with this case. But it strikes me that fraud is often accused (SFO have major problems in this area) and what does the accused do? Do they just admit the offences and take the rap, or do they follow legal advice which often involves defending the case and necessarily involves huge legal bills with no real outcome because of the very nature of fraud trials? Fraud is one of those areas where there are so many shades of grey that it is impossible to guess the outcome of a trial from either side, and yet, because of its nature so much time and money is spent on establishing a persuasive, but always inconclusive, argument on either side. And that is what it boils down to in the end, power of argument; invariably there is no CCTV footage, no eye witness accounts of the deed being perpetrated, it just comes down to a feeling of someone has done something naughty and we must bring the whole power of the legal machine down upon them but at whose cost? I gave evidence at a SFO prosecuted fraud trial a couple of years' ago. There were four defendants and each had a team of lawyers in court. I was paid (i.e. my expenses as per the SFO guidelines) by the prosecution to attend and this included travel and hotel. Also a nanny because I had to take my children with me as there was no one that could look after them here. All in all, my expenses claim exceeded £1,500 and that truly was without ripping the arse out of it; all meals were paid for by me and the cost of entertaining the kids with the nanny were met out of my pocket. The SFO made all the arrangements because they thought, despite having told the investigating officers the truth as we saw it many, many times, that I was a valuable witness. That case cost immense amounts, far in excess of anything in the Corkill case, and the outcome? There was no case to answer! Hmm! If the investigating officers had listened to what we were saying all along, perhaps that expense would never have been incurred. But, no, there is a fraud here, we don't exactly know what it is but there is definitely something, and while that mindset is present all the defendants, and the witnesses in my own case, can do is pay dearly one way or another. As far as they feel they must and without legal aid as deep as their pockets will allow and depending on legal advice and evidence. Lawyer should advise on risk, downsides of conviction for the future, real risk of trial, cjhance of success, cost of triual. Then client has to take the decision. If legal aid ios granted then one of the factors in that decision goes away. Isn't the real question what cost if we didn't invgestigate. Once investigated there are political pressures on the investigators. How do they escape that they let a court take the decisionrather than saying not enough evidence and then being pilloried. The cost is huge either way. But we have a right, I think, to see competent investigation and prosecution, in appropraite circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Thanks, but I will ponder this a tad more. As far as they feel they must? As far as they feel they have to be pushed into responding. Cost of investigating? Please tell me when a fraud trial has ever balanced the books? Lawyer advising on risk? At what point does the average lawyer anywhere have a reliable crystal ball? Sorry, but I really do believe fraud is the lawyers' new black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.