'Builder Mark Killick turned our home into junkyard', jury told
Ms Brooks said Mr Killick, who introduced himself as Mark Cole, had agreed to extend her driveway and rebuild the listed orangery at her home in Portishead in December 2019.She was quoted £115k for the project and asked to pay a deposit of £20k upfront."He seemed very clever, had a lot of ideas about what you could do," she told the jury. "He had the gift of the gab, made a lot of sense and sounded plausible."
The scaffolding went up immediately but progress was slow and inefficient, she told the court, and Mr Killick blamed the Covid-19 pandemic for delays.As the months went on, she said he continued to request further money for traders and materials that never arrived - bringing the total cost to £93k.He allegedly threatened to "halt all the work completely" if she did not pay up."We had what we thought was a contract," Ms Brooks explained. "We had sunk money into this and we needed to get it done. I had to push it forward."
'We're getting desperate'
Despite repeated attempts to contact Mr Killick to confirm the schedule of works, she alleges her home was left in a dangerous state of disarray for months.She claims the temporary scaffolding over the orangery was so poorly constructed it "kept lifting up" in the wind.The jury was shown text exchanges between the pair as she pleaded for an update, saying: "We're getting desperate, please call us. Are you still alive?"Our beautiful home looks like a junkyard. Our house is worthless until this job is done."Ms Brooks claimed completion dates were "plucked out of the air to fob [her] off".
However, defence attorney Robin Shellard suggested she had expanded the project by around 30%, requiring more work than was initially agreed upon.He cited an extended driveway and a natural stone wall, but Ms Brooks disputed the claim they had not been included in the original plans."It may not have been to your satisfaction, it may not have been good enough, but a considerable amount of work had been done," Mr Shellard said.The trial continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Nikita Hand's lawyer asks court to refer Conor McGregor appeal affidavits to DPP
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should examine affidavits making accusations against a woman who sued Conor McGregor, her lawyers have said, after the fighter decided to withdraw them from his appeal. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand (35) successfully sued Mr McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. Advertisement During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, Mr McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. Nikita Hand, who is also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, leaving the Court of Appeal in Dublin. Photo: Niall Carson/PA After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found Mr McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded €248,603.60 in damages. Her lawyers have said she was disadvantaged by 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' in 'widely published' claims Mr McGregor brought as part of his appeal that she did not have a chance to reply to in court before they were withdrawn. Advertisement It related to affidavits from two former neighbours of Ms Hand which said she had been assaulted by her then-partner at around the same time of the incident at the hotel. On Tuesday, Mr McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal which would have introduced the new evidence into the proceedings – saying it would no longer be relying on the material. John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn at a late basis. He said his client, who had denied accusations within the affidavits, had been 'put through the wringer yet again'. Advertisement On Wednesday, Mr Gordon raised the matters again and asked the Court of Appeal to use its jurisdiction to refer matters to the DPP. He said the application on the affidavits had been made 'some months ago' and the material the proposed witnesses were due to raise had been 'published widely'. He said the court was aware of the 'scale of the accusations' made against his client, which he said were a series of 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms' including that she had been lying. Mr Gordon said the application to introduce the witnesses was not just to produce further evidence, but also to 'undermine my client's reputation'. Advertisement He said Ms Hand had described what was alleged as lies in her responding affidavit and that she should have been entitled for her opportunity to 'call this out in court'. He said his client had been disadvantaged by the application. Mr Gordon also said it amounted to discontinuation of part of the appeal and asked the court to add terms of the payment of costs to Ms Hand's side. Mark Mulholland KC, for Mr McGregor, said that withdrawing the application did not amount to a discontinuation of proceedings and if Mr Gordon believed that a criminal investigation was necessary, it should be dealt with in that forum rather than the court. Advertisement Speaking before Mr Gordon dealt substantively with the issue on Wednesday, Mr Mulholland said it was an attempt to get the matter on the record for the media, adding that this would be 'wholly inappropriate'. He said costs relating to this specific part of the appeal should be adjudicated within the final determination. He said he had no further comment to make on whether the matters should be referred to the DPP. The judges expressed concern that dealing with the materials relating to the affidavits created a risk of prejudicing any potential criminal prosecution. Meanwhile, the appeal, which has yet to be decided, had proceeded on other grounds largely relating to the circumstances under which his 'no comment' answers to gardai were allowed to enter the trial. Remy Farrell, SC, also for Mr McGregor, said on Tuesday that an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. He said this occurred under cross-examination by Mr Gordon and was based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Ireland Conor McGregor continues appeal without fresh evid... Read More Mr Farrell said his client had made a comment about wanting to seek the best advice from his solicitors and accused Ms Hand's side of incorrectly interpreting the same comments as a suggestion that McGregor had sought to present himself as someone who was being fully co-operative with gardai. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He said it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Diddy trial live: Jury deliberating final charge after reaching partial verdict
14:01:00 In pictures: Diddy's mother and lawyers arrive at court 13:51:37 The charges, partial verdict details and possible sentence Sean "Diddy" Combs is facing five charges, or counts. Jurors have reached a verdict on counts 2, 3, 4 and 5, but not the first count on the indictment - which was first announced after his arrest in September last year. Here is a reminder of the charges: Count 1: Racketeering conspiracy - jury still deliberating Count 2: Sex-trafficking of Cassie Ventura - verdict reached Count 3: Transportation for prostitution of Cassie and others - verdict reached Count 4: Sex-trafficking of Jane* - verdict reached Count 5: Transportation for prostitution of Jane and others - verdict reached And here are the potential sentences: Racketeering conspiracy - up to life in prison Sex-trafficking - a minimum sentence of 15 years and up to life in prison Transportation to engage in prostitution - a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison *Jane, who dated Diddy between early 2021 and his arrest in 2024, testified using a pseudonym. 13:43:58 The scenes in court yesterday As the prosecution and defence teams read the jury's note confirming they were split on the racketeering charge yesterday, Diddy's lawyers huddled around him - and the moment was captured by the sketch artist in the room. The hip-hop mogul appeared dejected and at one point held his head. As usual, his mother Janice Combs was in court to support him, along with his six eldest children. He appeared more upbeat as he got up to leave the courtroom, turning to them and blowing a kiss. His mother asked about the verdicts, and Combs spoke reassuringly: "They came back with four verdicts and we're waiting on count one... It'll be all right, I love you." Combs smiled, but appeared notably more subdued than he has been throughout the seven-and-a-half weeks of this trial so far. He left court knowing a partial verdict had been reached but having to wait to find out what jurors have decided. 13:34:01 What is racketeering conspiracy? Count 1 on the prosecution's indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs is the most complicated of the five charges - racketeering conspiracy, which covers a number of alleged crimes. This is the one jurors are split on. Racketeering broadly means engaging in a criminal scheme or enterprise, and the charge falls under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO) in the US. According to the US justice department's definition of RICO statute, it is also illegal to "conspire to violate" the laws, and this is what Combs is accused of, over 20 years from 2004 until his arrest last year. Racketeering conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, Judge Arun Subramanian has said. This doesn't have to be a formal agreement, but can be a mutual understanding, spoken or unspoken. "You may, of course, find that the existence of an agreement to achieve the unlawful object has been established by direct proof," jurors have been told. "However, since conspiracy is, by its very nature, characterised by secrecy, you may also infer its existence from the circumstances of this case and the conduct of the parties involved." The eight acts Combs is accused of that fall under the racketeering charge are: Kidnapping Arson Bribery Witness tampering Forced labour Sex trafficking Transportation to engage in prostitution Possession with intent to distribute drugs Racketeering conspiracy carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. 13:27:26 Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial: Day three of jury deliberations - with partial verdict reached Good afternoon on what could be a huge day in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Yesterday, not long before the end of the court day in Manhattan, New York, there was a flurry of activity as jurors sent a note confirming they had reached a verdict on four of the charges against the hip-hop mogul. These are two counts of sex-trafficking and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. However, they said there were jurors with "unpersuadable" views on the most complicated charge - racketeering conspiracy. The court did not hear the verdicts reached so far yesterday. Instead, Judge Arun Subramanian encouraged jurors to continue deliberating on the racketeering conspiracy charge - which they will start to do today at 2pm UK time. We will bring you all the updates from court as soon as we have them. 23:47:02 Goodnight - and see you back here tomorrow After an eventful day, that's it from our live coverage for today. We'll be back tomorrow as jurors continue to deliberate the charge of racketeering conspiracy against Sean "Diddy" Combs. They have reached verdicts on the other four counts - two of sex-trafficking and two of transportation for prostitution - but Combs will have to wait to find out what they have decided. Deliberations will resume at 2pm UK time. You can read our report on today's events here - and we'll see you again tomorrow. 22:30:13 Sean 'Diddy' Combs will have to wait to hear his fate Just over seven weeks since they first sat down to hear the evidence in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial, jurors have now reached verdicts on four out of the five counts against him. They have been deliberating for about 13 hours. There were tense scenes as the news was delivered to both the prosecution and defence towards the end of the court day today - but the hip-hop mogul will have to wait to hear his fate. Jurors have been asked to deliberate further on the charge of racketeering, and will continue to do so tomorrow. 22:25:25 Judge asks jurors to keep an open mind as they continue tomorrow The judge calls jurors back in again very briefly to thank them for all their hard work so far. He tells them they won't need to come into the courtroom first thing tomorrow, but once all 12 jurors have arrived they can return to their deliberations on the racketeering charge. Reminding them once again to keep an open mind, he wishes them all "a great evening" and says he will see them tomorrow. 22:22:04 Jurors to continue deliberating tomorrow Judge Arun Subramanian has welcomed the jury back into the courtroom in Manhattan, New York. He acknowledges they have reached verdicts on four of the five counts, and asks that they keep deliberating on Count 1 - racketeering conspiracy. The judge reminds them of the instructions they were given yesterday, that they should not hesitate to change their opinion if convinced and follow his instructions on the law. Jurors are dismissed from the courtroom, but quickly send a note back. They have completed their deliberations for the day and will return tomorrow at 9am (2pm UK time).
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
High Court to rule on MI5 false evidence case after BBC investigation
Update: Date: 13:37 BST Title: What did the court hear last month? Content: While we wait for proceedings to begin at 14:00 BST, let's have a look back at what the court heard on 3 June: You can read our investigations correspondent Daniel De Simone's full story from the time. Update: Date: 13:28 BST Title: What's the case all about? Content: Cachella SmithReporting from the High Court The start of these proceedings tracks back to a man, known publicly as X, who served as an informant for MI5. A BBC investigation published in 2022 found X had used his position as a means to terrorise his partner, known as Beth. Video evidence showed him threatening to kill her and attacking her with a machete. The government had sought to block publication of this – failing to do so completely although succeeding in preventing publication of the man's identity, which is why we call him X. During these proceedings, and those brought by Beth, MI5 told three separate courts that it had stuck to its core secrecy policy of neither confirming nor denying X was a state agent. However, the BBC in February produced notes and phone call recordings proving MI5 had disclosed the man's status to them during attempts to prevent its investigation into the matter. It meant the agency had given false evidence in court. The agency has since issued an "unreserved apology" – calling what happened a "serious error". And that brings us to where we are now, and a situation that has raised questions about the reliability of MI5's evidence to courts generally as well as their policy of neither confirming nor denying the identity of who works for them. Update: Date: 13:25 BST Title: Judges to decide actions to take over MI5's false evidence Content: Daniel De SimoneInvestigations correspondent, reporting from court Three High Court judges will rule at 14:00 BST on what to do about false evidence given by MI5 to three courts. MI5 stands accused of deliberately lying when trying to block the BBC from publishing a story about a neo-Nazi state agent, who abused his partner. MI5 claimed it had never breached its core secrecy policy of neither confirming nor denying that the man was an agent, but the BBC proved it had. The case has become a major test of how the courts see MI5 and the credibility of its evidence. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, and two other senior judges, will decide if MI5's explanations for the false evidence are adequate or whether the court needs to take further action. I'll be in court with my colleague Cachella Smith to bring you the latest.
