The Verdict

[Theskeat]

So what happens next? Seems to me the order on costs in the criminal case could have a significant impact on the civil case.

 

The civil case has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal case. The outcome of the criminal case will have no bearing on the civil case, they deal with totally different things.

 

The civil case relates to a builder (loosely used term) who is claiming monies he thinks he is due for work done and a counter claim by the client claiming poor workmanship and the costs of rectifying this poor workmanship.

 

Any award in the civil case will not be made on what the party can afford but what the court decides is duly owed to whichever party gets the award.

 

So you are FCMR then.

 

Heh.

 

 

 

As for the identity or ‘the skeat’ being that of FCMR, that has never been in doubt.

 

 

Don't really care if 'the skeat' and FCMR are the same person or not, but I personally think the criminal case could possibly have a huge impact on the civil case - if Mr's Ned has to pay back one of the loans, and court costs - there could be a possibilty she could claim bankruptcy (still leaving Ned in the clear?), then there wouldn't be a chance in hell of the builders being repayed money owing to them, if the courts decide the builders are 'in the right'.

 

Lets get one thing clear, the civil case is Will Kelly trading as GC Construction V Richard and Julie Corkill.

 

If the defendants lose the Civil case its both Mr & Mrs Corkill that have to pay MR KELLY.

Was there not a Public notice in the local press before this all kicked off stating that Mr Moore had no further involvment with GCC

[Billy One Mate]

The following press statement was sent to me by PM and I have just noticed has been reported on Manx Radio.

 

8 November 2006

 

This statement is in response to the judgement of High Bailiff Michael Moyle last week which found Julie Corkill guilty of four charges relating to deception and false accounting, but acquitted her of two charges relating to monies spent on her own home.

 

I would wish to point out that I am very disappointed in this verdict. The judgement, having found her guilty on four out of six counts, then proceeded to suggest that she was somehow not culpable for them and for what was, in my view, a clear misuse of her position as the wife of the (then) Chief Minister.

 

I believe that she was entirely culpable. There was strong evidence during the trial that, prior to the case, witnesses had been told by her that, if they were to take legal action or make statements against her, they "would never get Government work again". There has also been evidence of further private threats, and even abuse of members of the public attending court, which I understand has resulted in a police caution being made to a member of her family.

 

The Corkills have made much of the suffering they say that they have experienced over the past few years as a result of the allegations made against them. These allegations have now been proved in a court of law.

Little mention has been made about the suffering and stress caused to others, not only during this trial but also as a result of the continuous delays that have beset related civil proceedings.

In the case of one witness, serious health problems have resulted. Not only has that individual lost his house in order to pay for the costs of ongoing litigation, but he has now been told by his doctors that it is unlikely he will be able to continue in his trade as a bricklayer.

The tradesmen who worked hard and skilfully to create the facility involved - a project that was described in court as "a project finished to a very high standard and value for money" by an independent surveyor - still have not been paid for their work. This is despite the fact that public money had been received by the Corkill's to pay for it. Now these ordinary working men have only the prospect of yet further legal costs and lost income in their bid to resolve the matter.

 

Regardless of whether the decision today by Mr Moyle to punish Mrs Corkill with just a fine was appropriate, the application by the defence Advocate to have her client's costs paid out of the court funds is brazen, unacceptable and unprecedented. At the start of the trial Mrs Corkill refused the opportunity to plead guilty to the four proven charges and to have the other two charges dropped by the prosecution. Why should the public pay for her obstinacy?

I would like to thank the local police and the prosecution team for their

hard work and dedication in bringing this case to the courts, something that is not

always given the recognition it deserves.

 

 

Colin Moore

[Paul H]

The following press statement was sent to me by PM and I have just noticed has been reported on Manx Radio.

 

8 November 2006

 

This statement is in response to the judgement of High Bailiff Michael Moyle last week which found Julie Corkill guilty of four charges relating to deception and false accounting, but acquitted her of two charges relating to monies spent on her own home.

 

I would wish to point out that I am very disappointed in this verdict. The judgement, having found her guilty on four out of six counts, then proceeded to suggest that she was somehow not culpable for them and for what was, in my view, a clear misuse of her position as the wife of the (then) Chief Minister.

 

I believe that she was entirely culpable. There was strong evidence during the trial that, prior to the case, witnesses had been told by her that, if they were to take legal action or make statements against her, they "would never get Government work again". There has also been evidence of further private threats, and even abuse of members of the public attending court, which I understand has resulted in a police caution being made to a member of her family.

 

The Corkills have made much of the suffering they say that they have experienced over the past few years as a result of the allegations made against them. These allegations have now been proved in a court of law.

Little mention has been made about the suffering and stress caused to others, not only during this trial but also as a result of the continuous delays that have beset related civil proceedings.

In the case of one witness, serious health problems have resulted. Not only has that individual lost his house in order to pay for the costs of ongoing litigation, but he has now been told by his doctors that it is unlikely he will be able to continue in his trade as a bricklayer.

The tradesmen who worked hard and skilfully to create the facility involved - a project that was described in court as "a project finished to a very high standard and value for money" by an independent surveyor - still have not been paid for their work. This is despite the fact that public money had been received by the Corkill's to pay for it. Now these ordinary working men have only the prospect of yet further legal costs and lost income in their bid to resolve the matter.

 

Regardless of whether the decision today by Mr Moyle to punish Mrs Corkill with just a fine was appropriate, the application by the defence Advocate to have her client's costs paid out of the court funds is brazen, unacceptable and unprecedented. At the start of the trial Mrs Corkill refused the opportunity to plead guilty to the four proven charges and to have the other two charges dropped by the prosecution. Why should the public pay for her obstinacy?

I would like to thank the local police and the prosecution team for their

hard work and dedication in bringing this case to the courts, something that is not

always given the recognition it deserves.

 

 

Colin Moore

 

Well said Colin.

[When Skies Are Grey]

You wanted a trial....you got a trial...you didnt like the outcome...hardly surprising unless she had been rolled down hill in a barrel...surely its time to move on otherwise this will just consume the rest of whatever life you have left.

 

No-one has come out of this smelling of roses on either side if you ask me, but surely thats enough for us all???

[Silentbob]

Whoever thought that this corrupt little circle of miscreants would cook up anything other than a slap on the wrist needs a kick up the arse.

 

Moyle, The Corkhills, they are all born of the same socially accepted school of "Rich and Powerful = Above the Law"

 

Precident set? Maybe, until that is that Moyle decides that this was a 'special' case.

[Tugger]

I would have thought that if she had the opportunity to plead guilty to the minor charges, and that because she didn't the prosecution refused to drop the more serious charges, she should pay every penny of her own costs at the very least. Where's the justice otherwise?

[Theskeat]

You wanted a trial....you got a trial...you didnt like the outcome...hardly surprising unless she had been rolled down hill in a barrel...surely its time to move on otherwise this will just consume the rest of whatever life you have left.

 

No-one has come out of this smelling of roses on either side if you ask me, but surely thats enough for us all???

 

Regardless of whether the decision today by Mr Moyle to punish Mrs Corkill with just a fine was appropriate, the application by the defence Advocate to have her client's costs paid out of the court funds is brazen, unacceptable and unprecedented. At the start of the trial Mrs Corkill refused the opportunity to plead guilty to the four proven charges and to have the other two charges dropped by the prosecution. Why should the public pay for her obstinacy?

 

WASG.

Wrong the builders never wanted a trial. this was said on a MR interview, the builders asked to go to arbitration, Corkills turned it down. Several MHKs asked Mr Corkill personally to have the civil dispute sorted out behind closed doors only to be told it wont go to court they aint got the money. The Criminal offences only came to light when the Civil case started. Whats should the builder have done, what would you have done if you had found out criminal activity had occured/commited by others in which if not reported could make you accountable.

 

And at the end of it all FCMR will not and is not after any personal financial gain, he would just like to see the contractors and suppliers get paid for the services they were asked to provide and did.

[Cholmondley-Warner]

You wanted a trial....you got a trial...you didnt like the outcome...hardly surprising unless she had been rolled down hill in a barrel...surely its time to move on otherwise this will just consume the rest of whatever life you have left.

 

No-one has come out of this smelling of roses on either side if you ask me, but surely thats enough for us all???

 

Regardless of whether the decision today by Mr Moyle to punish Mrs Corkill with just a fine was appropriate, the application by the defence Advocate to have her client's costs paid out of the court funds is brazen, unacceptable and unprecedented. At the start of the trial Mrs Corkill refused the opportunity to plead guilty to the four proven charges and to have the other two charges dropped by the prosecution. Why should the public pay for her obstinacy?

 

WASG.

Wrong the builders never wanted a trial. this was said on a MR interview, the builders asked to go to arbitration, Corkills turned it down. Several MHKs asked Mr Corkill personally to have the civil dispute sorted out behind closed doors only to be told it wont go to court they aint got the money. The Criminal offences only came to light when the Civil case started. Whats should the builder have done, what would you have done if you had found out criminal activity had occured/commited by others in which if not reported could make you accountable.

 

And at the end of it all FCMR will not and is not after any personal financial gain, he would just like to see the contractors and suppliers get paid for the services they were asked to provide and did.

 

Why, when everyone knows that you and FCMR are one and the same person do you still persist with this stupid charade, unless you really are a schizophrenic, get a bloody life and grow up.

[The Old Git]

Why, when everyone knows that you and FCMR are one and the same person do you still persist with this stupid charade

 

I don't know, the first para is well puncuated and the spelling is all correct

[Theskeat]

 

 

Why, when everyone knows that you and FCMR are one and the same person do you still persist with this stupid charade, unless you really are a schizophrenic, get a bloody life and grow up.

 

So whats the big deal, you could be Fatty Arbuckle for all I know, and do I give a toss?

[haX0red_Account]

Justice does matter- although tedious and boring to those of us not directly impacted, it's the persistence of those like colin moore who actually create change and potentially benefit us all. As B1M said, this could be good for the island in general as the establishment position is looking increasingly untenable, like in the US. Hope exists for a less corrupt ruling class.

[Snaipyr]

You wanted a trial....you got a trial...you didnt like the outcome...hardly surprising unless she had been rolled down hill in a barrel...surely its time to move on otherwise this will just consume the rest of whatever life you have left.

 

No-one has come out of this smelling of roses on either side if you ask me, but surely thats enough for us all???

 

No, it's not enough for 'us all' - there's still unfinished business. And an ordinary barrel is much too good for her - it has to be a spiked one.

[LoneWolf]

Im not certain the press statement was a wise move.

We all need to keep an eye on our own welfare sometimes [skeat]

Take care, you wont be a popular chap.

[Theskeat]

Im not certain the press statement was a wise move.

We all need to keep an eye on our own welfare sometimes [skeat]

Take care, you wont be a popular chap.

 

I never was.

 

As to welfare Mr Kelly could have lost his life, and the chap that spent a lot of time Decorating the Neds house died 10 mins after the trial finished aged 56 and never got his say in court , a true friend and workmate for 21 years rip Tony

[The Agitator]

Im not certain the press statement was a wise move.

We all need to keep an eye on our own welfare sometimes [skeat]

Take care, you wont be a popular chap.

 

I never was.

 

As to welfare Mr Kelly could have lost his life, and the chap that spent a lot of time Decorating the Neds house died 10 mins after the trial finished aged 56 and never got his say in court , a true friend and workmate for 21 years rip Tony

 

Skeat,

 

when are you releasing the info about the property purchases from old people... now the trial is over you could always throw that gem in to the ring??