The Old Git Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I personally think in this case justice has been seen to be done. The court has said 1. You did not set out deliberately to defraud from day 1 2. When it got complicated, and to resolve matters you cheated, even though you were entitled to the money if you had done it properly. Thats the difference from the benefit cheat, they weren't entitled at all. I appreciate your views, especially as they are from a lawyer's POV There have been claims that two grant applications were applied for to circumvent the limit There have been claims that the tourism grant was from property that was being used in a manner that breached the planning terms, i.e. for long term let. Of course, now that they've got the tourism grant they have changed the use to long term let anyway There were the 21 breaches of planning permission There are still the outstanding civil claims For a couple where the husband introduced the tourism grant scheme and had previously worked in the planning department, that still leaves a bad taste in my mouth that hasn't yet been rinsed away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 That's the bit I can't get my head around at all. If the Grants were for Holiday lets specifically, how are they now Long term lets (ie virtually residential) ? And surely by lying to cover up "misunderstandings" she should have null and voided any eligibility ? Thieawin is best placed to judge the whole thing but I still can't help but think it's not a satisfactory verdict in the eyes of the majority. Why *was* she allowed a Summary trial, JW ? I'm sure a Jury verdict would have sat better with the masses... ...GOMH*... Edited to correct horrendous spelling mistake *shakes head*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Ned loved being CM. He also really enjoyed having his nose in the trough of government largesse. As soon as he stated so late in the day that he would not stand again the outcome of the case became very obvious. Unless, of course, you are naive enough to think he was not informed of the verdict beforehand.... Typical. Tourism grants are up to about 50K per project and normally consist of more fire alarms, double glazing etc etc up to about £5K. The Corkills got 90K for one project that will set them up for life. Call this justice do you? Tell you what, why don't you just all roll over and let them get away with it? Oooops, it looks like you already have..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 This court was not dealing with the question of are the grants now repayable. That may be dealt with administratively, ie the grants may be demanded back and by a court if that is refused. Likewise this court wass not dealing with breaches of planning. Again that will no doubt be dealt with by an enforcement notice and even demolition orders by the court if there is n on compliance. Again a different case. I won't comment in deatil. I do not have the facts. There is clearly a lot of misunderstanding. You may beleive my statemnet of not. It is an accurate summary of what the court is reported to have found. In other words the court says it is not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, so as to be sure or certain, that she set out submiting grant applications with an intent to defraud. She was not charged with making two applications. Its the finding of the court. You may disbelieve it but you must not now say on here that she did set out with that intent or you or the site owners may get sued. As for why a summary trial, there is no automatic right to General Gaol. Mr Moyle and the prosecution must have concluded it was appropraite for summary trial. I cannot remember what Mrs Jones asked for, but there is no longer an absolute right. The statistics are that juries are more lenient than paid judges by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Moral justice vs reality...I'm sorry the world is the way it is, it is a great shame that people can befuzzle their way out of trouble, however it is something to always keep in mind, do what you want, there is nothing you cannot get out of, provided you have a good befuzzler on your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 This court was not dealing with the question of are the grants now repayable. That may be dealt with administratively, ie the grants may be demanded back and by a court if that is refused. Likewise this court wass not dealing with breaches of planning. Again that will no doubt be dealt with by an enforcement notice and even demolition orders by the court if there is n on compliance. Again a different case. This is rather similar to the public's perception of the Ken Dodd tax case when he was found not quilty. The opinion and understanding of many of public was that as he was found not guilty of the criminal charges then he walked away having not to pay the tax. In fact he paid the tax and a huge amount of penalties and interest on top. The court case was purely about whether the underpayment of tax was a deliberate intent to defraud or due to "error". Not wether he had underpaid the tax Reading many of the comments above it appears that a similar missunderstanding is arising in this case in that any repayments etc etc will only arise if there was a guilty verdict. Whether found guilty or innocent of the charges any funds "incorrectly" claimed or no longer due as a result of a change in use will still have to be repaid if the grant conditions have not been met Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 You may beleive my statemnet of not. It is an accurate summary of what the court is reported to have found. I'm not arguing with you, or disbelieving your. You are a lawyer commenting on a legal process and I appreciate your legal analysis of the case You may disbelieve it but you must not now say on here that she did set out with that intent or you or the site owners may get sued. I have tried to be careful with what I said re the claims about planning breaches, the way the claims were made, etc., and I haven't said it was intentional. After all, she didn't understand all of the processes that she and her husband were involved in. I will happily withdraw my previous comment if it's felt necessary I do recall that another recipient of a tourism grant was fined for permitting a long term let so I await any further development with interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 From the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/is...man/6100114.stm Guilty Corkill will not face jail The wife of a former Isle of Man chief minister has been found guilty of four charges in her fraud trial. Julie Corkill, 52, from Onchan, was convicted of four charges of false accounting but cleared of two counts of obtaining money by deception. High Bailiff Michael Moyle said that he believed she had not set out to deceive the Department of Tourism. Adjourning the court until 9 November, Mr Moyle stressed that Corkill would not face a custodial sentence. Fine likely The trial, which began in July, related to building work undertaken at the Corkills' home in Ballacain between October 2002 and October 2003. Department of Tourism grants were paid for the development of tourist accommodation at their home. On Monday, Corkill was convicted of three charges relating to the submission of invoices that she knew had not been paid and one charge of submitting a false estimate for building work. She was cleared of two counts of falsely obtaining tourism grants for work on her private home. Delivering his verdict, Mr Moyle said he could not accept that Corkill set out to deceive or take advantage of the department "It was only when problems, not necessarily of her own making, arose did she stoop to dishonest methods," he said. Mr Moyle said a fine was the likely punishment he would impose. Julie Corkill is the wife of Richard Corkill, who was the island's chief minister from December 2001 to December 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 This is great. It's like the OJ Simpson trial - manx stylee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Accept for the guilty verdict and was there a car chase involving Mrs Corkill? There may well have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The main similarity was both cases involved an old Bronco... Alledgedly ... ...GOMH*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I feel that it would only be fare to make comment on Mr Moyles findings once it has be read. If anyone would like a copy of Mr Moyles Judgment I could send it, just PM a fax No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonto Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I dont think I'm alone in not wanting an MHK who (a) doesn't know anything about a major building project his wife is running at their own home and (B) is so poorly advised (or can't think for himself) to know that seeking a grant OF ANY KIND was inappropriate or an unwise thing to even consider given his then position as chief minister. How can a person possibly be trusted to represent all of us if he can't manage his own domestic circumstances? This man was the Treasury Minister as well for heaven's sakes. The building issue has been going on for ages - did he just put his fingers in his ears and go lalalalalalala at home? I feel very sorry for their children it must be beyond awful for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Shock horror a dummy quotation was submitted! Has no one on this forum never submtted an insurance claim for roof repairs or similar? If you genuinely have sought out three independent quotes you are highly unusual. Sorry, but I've never submitted any false quotations and I resent the implication that we're all at it. Im not really bothered about offending your sensibilities. It remains the case that it is common practice for non kosher builders estimates to be submitted, along with the genuine article, to insurance companies etc. The point being, as you seem to have totally missed it, is that the crimes committed are not all that serious and, I would suggest, all that unusual either. On this occasion the IOM justice system, or at least a part of it, has shown status and perceived importance is not a shield against prosecution. I think thats something positive for us to take away from the whole seedy story. The sentence, when it is passed down is largely unimportant .. as were the crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 It remains the case that it is common practice for non kosher builders estimates to be submitted, along with the genuine article, to insurance companies etc. Common practice does not make it legal. The point being, as you seem to have totally missed it, is that the crimes committed are not all that serious and, I would suggest, all that unusual either. They're still crimes and they should be persecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.