Theskeat Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does anyone know what time this kicks off? 3pm today court No2. Prosicution witnesses who had the aid of an Advocate will not be able to claim their costs back, in some cases witnesses have paid out several thousands of pounds on Advocates, Mrs Corkill has been found guilty and could be awarded her costs, its a very unfair situation, one that makes you think why report a crime and have to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I don't think any criminal should be awarded 'costs'. So that inlcudes both Mrs C and the 'key' prosecution witness then. You know, the criminal builder chap who got 'sick'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 To be honest, I don't think the sentence really matters all that much now. Her husband's career and reputation have been utterly destroyed. Her reputation has, similarly, been obliterated. She will have to face the future knowing that everyone on the island - and many beyond it - will be aware of her criminal conviction. Her children are probably being subjected to teasing and tormenting - regardless of the fact that they are completely innocent parties. I know that, whatever the punishment, it still won't satisfy the lynch-mob mentality of many who post on here. There appear to be those who feel that she ought to have been tried in a more traditional way - put in a barrel and rolled down a long, steep hill, for example - but this whole affair has brought little credit to our island and the sooner it's over the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katman Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 To be honest, I don't think the sentence really matters all that much now.Her husband's career and reputation have been utterly destroyed. Her reputation has, similarly, been obliterated. She will have to face the future knowing that everyone on the island - and many beyond it - will be aware of her criminal conviction. Her children are probably being subjected to teasing and tormenting - regardless of the fact that they are completely innocent parties. I know that, whatever the punishment, it still won't satisfy the lynch-mob mentality of many who post on here. There appear to be those who feel that she ought to have been tried in a more traditional way - put in a barrel and rolled down a long, steep hill, for example - but this whole affair has brought little credit to our island and the sooner it's over the better. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 To be honest, I don't think the sentence really matters all that much now.Her husband's career and reputation have been utterly destroyed. Her reputation has, similarly, been obliterated. She will have to face the future knowing that everyone on the island - and many beyond it - will be aware of her criminal conviction. Her children are probably being subjected to teasing and tormenting - regardless of the fact that they are completely innocent parties. I know that, whatever the punishment, it still won't satisfy the lynch-mob mentality of many who post on here. There appear to be those who feel that she ought to have been tried in a more traditional way - put in a barrel and rolled down a long, steep hill, for example - but this whole affair has brought little credit to our island and the sooner it's over the better. Whilst I would agree with that, I still think it would STINK if prosecution witnesses were not awarded their costs. The implications of these people not being awarded costs could be very significant and damaging to the island i.e. people would not come forward in future for potentially far more important issues such as the collapse of a financial organisation etc. etc. Some of these cases could run for many months. This is a dangerous precedent or practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 To be honest, I don't think the sentence really matters all that much now. Her husband's career and reputation have been utterly destroyed. Her reputation has, similarly, been obliterated. She will have to face the future knowing that everyone on the island - and many beyond it - will be aware of her criminal conviction. Her children are probably being subjected to teasing and tormenting - regardless of the fact that they are completely innocent parties. I know that, whatever the punishment, it still won't satisfy the lynch-mob mentality of many who post on here. There appear to be those who feel that she ought to have been tried in a more traditional way - put in a barrel and rolled down a long, steep hill, for example - but this whole affair has brought little credit to our island and the sooner it's over the better. Whilst I would agree with that, I still think it would STINK if prosecution witnesses were not awarded their costs. The implications of these people not being awarded costs could be very significant and damaging to the island i.e. people would not come forward in future for potentially far more important issues such as the collapse of a financial organisation etc. etc. Some of these cases could run for many months. This is a dangerous precedent or practice. TBH I'm with Albert on this one - I will be totally disgusted if Mrs C. is awarded costs, - she has been found guilty of a crime, already had £90k of 'our' money - how could she possibly be awarded costs if she has been found guilty??? If she is awarded costs, it will make the IOM more of a laughing stock than at present, and give carte blanche to other people in similiar positions to commit similiar crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does anyone know what time this kicks off? 3pm today court No2. Prosicution witnesses who had the aid of an Advocate will not be able to claim their costs back, in some cases witnesses have paid out several thousands of pounds on Advocates, Mrs Corkill has been found guilty and could be awarded her costs, its a very unfair situation, one that makes you think why report a crime and have to pay for it. For the love of God it's PROSECUTION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 TBH I'm with Albert on this one - I will be totally disgusted if Mrs C. is awarded costs, - she has been found guilty of a crime, already had £90k of 'our' money - how could she possibly be awarded costs if she has been found guilty??? If she is awarded costs, it will make the IOM more of a laughing stock than at present, and give carte blanche to other people in similiar positions to commit similiar crimes. If I remember correctly she was found guilty of four charges ad not guilty in respect of three. The not guilty verdicts being in respect of the more serious offences i.e. fraud. The guilty were in respect of charges of false accounting The request for costs is as I understand it in respect of the costs incurred in respect of defending the not guilty charges. The argument being put forward that as these were the serious charges this is where the majority of the time, costs and expensese were incurred by the defence. I have views on the valididity of this argument but if it is accepted then Mrs C will not be awarded costs in respect of the matters she has been found guilty of. She will have been awarded costs in respect of the costs of defending herself in respect of the not guilty verdict. The fact that she was found guilty of some offences and not others has muddied the waters slightly with many of the posters appearing to believe that the request for costs relates to the costs relating to the charges which was found guilty on. As I understand it that is not the case and I agree it would be wrong. Equally if I ever find myself in court, charged and found not guilty I would expect and request that my costs be covered. In effect that is what Mrs Jones is requesting on behalf of Mrs C but as I say the fact she was found guilty on some charges & not guilty on others has muddied the waters The Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 The not guilty verdicts being in respect of the more serious offences i.e. fraud. The guilty were in respect of charges of false accounting I'm still wondering why you'd do false accounting if you didn't intend to defraud someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 The not guilty verdicts being in respect of the more serious offences i.e. fraud. The guilty were in respect of charges of false accounting I'm still wondering why you'd do false accounting if you didn't intend to defraud someone I think that we all could come up with a reasonable definition of Fraud. It is basically a version of theft and getting a gain you are not entitled to False accounting is more complex and has many degrees. I do not know the circumstances in this case but it need not involve theft i.e. on business you incur a £10 taxi fair which you are entitled to reclaim from work but need a receipt. You are given a receipt but loose it. No matter another taxi has given you a load of blank receipts so you fill in to reclaim your funds. That would probably be false accounting as you have got what you were due so presumably not theft but you created the invoice so that is false accounting. I am guessing that there are many versions of this from changing a date on an invoice so that you get paid early, changing the narrative so that less questions are raised, eg to sales for what really was a commission or back hander. A search on some legal websites gives a reasonable idea but appears to "creating" paperwork to cover a situation without causing loss to others. A lawyer I am sure can put it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Just searched for "false accounting" on wikipedia and was redirected to "fraud" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 From Manx Radio: Julie Corkill, the wife of former Chief Minister Richard Corkill, has today been fined a total of £10,000 after being convicted of four charges in connection with tourism grants. Last week, she was found guilty of three charges of false accounting and one of obtaining money by deception. She was cleared of a further count of deception and another charge of false accounting. The prosecution has asked today for Corkill to pay for the entire costs of the trial and that matter will be provisionally determined on November 24th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 great thanks for that...case closed...lets move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gonzo Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 great thanks for that...case closed...lets move on. Nah. Let's hope for an appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Does she have to repay the money she obtained by totaly above board means because she was entitled to it? Edited to clear up any misunderstandings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.