The Julie Corkill Trial has concluded, but a verdict isn't expected for a couple of weeks.

Today saw the prosecution and defence give their closing addresses to the court.

The alleged offences relate to grants applied for by Mrs Corkill in relation to building work at the family home, at Ballacain, Onchan.

Mrs Corkill, the wife of former Chief Minister Richard Corkill, denies all the charges against her.

Stuart Neale, prosecuting, reminded the Court that during his cross-eaxmination of Mrs Corkill yesterday he asked her if she knew how the grant scheme worked. She told him she didn't understand the DTL regulations as they were too complicated. Mr Kneale said ignorance of the law was no excuse, and there was still an obligation to stick to the rules.
Mr Neale claimed Mrs Corkill changed the rules to suit herself, and saw the regulations as she wanted to see them.

Defence advocate Dawn Jones made a big issue of failings within the Department of Tourism and Leisure. She said it was clear her client didn’t understand the DTL regulations because the building work commenced before grant approval was given, yet this was never picked up on by the department.

She said later on there was a site visit from a government quantity surveyor to check that the first phase, the holiday cottages, was complete. He mentioned phase two, the workshop conversion, had begun, but again nothing was flagged up in the department.
Dawn Jones asked how could Mrs Corkill be expected to abide by the regulations if the department of tourism and leisure didn’t?

Mr Neale said Mrs. Corkill gave "no comment" in one of her interviews to the police, and claimed a subsequent written statement showed she wanted to bide her time to work out plausible answers to questions asked. He described her as devious and said she tried to hide behind her inexperience. But he added that nobody embarked on a ?300,000 building project without knowing what they were doing.

Mrs Jones said it was up to the prosecution to prove the charges, not for her client to prove her innocence, and she asked the High Bailiff to bear in mind Mrs Corkill was of previous good character. Mrs Jones went on to say that the case was about credibility and character, and the prosecution had attempted to destroy her client’s good character with spurious accusations.

Mr Neale claimed Mrs Corkill suffered from "selective memory loss" and he said "the issues she couldn’t remember were the ones which required answers". He said it was common sense that if you were doing a ?300,000 building project, you didn't blindly sign off cheques to builders and not question what you were paying for. He said that was Mrs Corkill said she did.

Mrs Jones countered that If you were going to be dishonest, and you were a high profile individual, why use builders you didn't know? She asked how would you know they would go along with your plan? She said it didn't make sense.

Mrs Jones said when the prosecution was faced with problems with its evidence Mr Neale would always say Mrs Corkill would bully people to get her own way and abuse her position. But she didn't, Mrs Jones said. She always paid invoices without question, until she was advised not to pay the last two because a dispute had started.

Mrs Jones concluded that Mrs Corkill (pictured) hadn’t said or done anything dishonest. The way she kept paperwork was poor, she said, but she said her client couldn't be found guilty on any of the charges.